[HN Gopher] Joe Rogan, confined to Spotify, is losing influence
___________________________________________________________________
Joe Rogan, confined to Spotify, is losing influence
Author : Tomte
Score : 306 points
Date : 2021-08-25 15:39 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| duxup wrote:
| I wonder if Rogan would 'not lose influence' had he changed
| nothing.
|
| Feels like these kind of personalities, while they can have long
| careers, growth / reach isn't infinite or sustainable.
| motohagiography wrote:
| I was looking for who these listeners were switching to, or
| what the change was relative to overall podcast listenership,
| and was totally surprised the authors didn't include a base
| rate in their analysis. Not including base rates in references
| to anything quantitative is like writing spam emails with
| spelling mistakes because being dumb enough not to notice is a
| good proxy for being dumb enough to buy what you are selling.
| Though I doubt whether the people at the Verge have the
| sophistication to be intentionally fraudulent. They just need
| enough noise or to craft a conflict around. However it's a good
| example of data-horoscope journalism, where you backfit your
| narrative to points on a line.
|
| Rogan is probably the most successful podcaster in the world by
| a variety of possible metrics, and I'm not sure what a
| reasonable expectation of how that plays out would be. Does he
| transform into a being of pure light and ascend into space, or,
| does he just do a job he likes until he doesn't anymore, and
| moves on to something else?
|
| The Verge should just say what they mean, which is that Rogan
| talks to off-brand people and you shouldn't be tempted by how
| good the conversations are because it will not align you with
| crumbling mainstream narratives, and instead you should spend
| your time engaged with their clickbait talking points factory
| deciphering their adolescent purple sophistry.
| heyparkerj wrote:
| I listened to Joe a lot when I was doing manual labor in
| 2013-2014ish. Like almost every single episode. I was always
| able to intake the things I thought were interesting and laugh
| off stuff I thought was dumb or unconvincing, but I do remember
| thinking that one day the greater internet will realize that
| his podcast is littered with content that people could easily
| misconstrue and start a real uproar about with sufficient
| motivation. Based on this, I think people shining a light on
| some of the dumber things that a self proclaimed dumb guy says
| while recording himself talking for 10 hours a week, and
| becoming a bit of an internet meme in the process was
| inevitable - and that's before he started saying whatever the
| hell he's been saying about vaccines and masks.
| duxup wrote:
| I've thought about the balance between "I don't know and I'm
| going to think out loud here." and doing that as
| entertainment and ... where that leads to some responsibility
| for saying some stuff that you really don't know that is dead
| wrong and ...
|
| I duno. It's a weird world.
| toofy wrote:
| yeah, i think he kind of peaked shortly before the period where
| he was so obsessive with his attempts to outrage people over
| pronouns. i seemed to stop hearing about him around that time
| other than the headlines surrounding the spotify deal of
| course.
| cratermoon wrote:
| Good.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Spotify is just not set up for long-form video content. The
| discovery aspect of YouTube is one reason why it reels you in.
| You're scrolling through your feed, you see an interesting clip,
| and you click on it. Another big part of YouTube is the comment
| section. Spotify lacks on both fronts. I also think the JRE clips
| were a big part of what sucked people into watch full epsiodes.
| If a 5-7 minute JRE clip were interesting I might jump in and
| watch the whole episode. I don't think they've done that or done
| it as well on Spotify.
| dragonelite wrote:
| Those short clips did indeed pulled in me in to just put a JRE
| episode on the background while working xD
| gordon_freeman wrote:
| This. The flexibility to search for a video coupled with YT's
| spontaneous recommendations is something unique to YouTube. So
| many times I have seen a clip about PBS Newshour episode on YT
| and then end up watching whole Newshour episode or most of it.
| Having all videos on varied lengths in same platform makes it
| easy to consume based on the time available.
| DantesKite wrote:
| He still posts Joe Rogan clips and I genuinely still enjoy
| listening to those.
| daughart wrote:
| Just like Howard Stern (note, SiriusXM also owns Spotify). They
| traded a broader audience and greater influence for stability and
| gigantic paychecks. E.g., in Howard's case, even though his
| personal influence shrunk, his importance to Sirius/Spotify grew
| as a fraction of the subscriber base is dedicated to one talent
| and would otherwise unsubscribe. Howard's deal has been renewed a
| number of times now. I can't blame anyone involved.
| adamrezich wrote:
| this makes more sense for Stern because his audience is much
| narrower than Rogan's. Stern moving from terrestrial radio gave
| him more "freedom," whereas the same can't be said for Rogan.
| also, Stern took the deal when he had been established voice in
| radio for decades, whereas Rogan was (to my understanding) just
| reaching his height of popularity before the exclusivity deal
| began.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > this makes more sense for Stern because his audience is
| much narrower than Rogan's.
|
| In what way was Stern's audience narrower at all than
| Rogan's? Stern _narrowed_ his audience when he moved to
| Sirius, but so did Rogan, apparently. When Stern was in
| syndication and on E!, he had as general an audience as any
| radio personality (back when people listened to the radio.)
| Rogan has a very narrow demographic as far as I can see, and
| virtually that entire demo is a subset of who listened to or
| watched Stern during what was something like a 15 year long
| peak.
| adamrezich wrote:
| > Rogan has a very narrow demographic as far as I can see,
| and virtually that entire demo is a subset of who listened
| to or watched Stern during what was something like a 15
| year long peak.
|
| really? I was under the impression that Rogan skewed much
| younger. (at _least_ compared to the Stern audience when he
| made his platform jump.) and sure Stern narrowed his
| audience when he moved to satellite, but wasn 't he already
| a bit past his prime at that point?
| eplanit wrote:
| Stern tried to adapt, and with a degree of success. He came
| from the "Shock Jock", Andrew Dice Clay era, but shifted in
| recent years to become much softer and "woke".
| cylinder714 wrote:
| emacsen/Serge Wroclawski's piece, "Stern Fan In Recovery,"
| touches on this and the abuse his employees deal with:
| https://blog.emacsen.net/blog/2021/07/03/stern-fan-in-
| recove...
| jswrenn wrote:
| Correction: SiriusXM owns Pandora, not Spotify.
|
| https://investor.siriusxm.com/investor-overview/press-releas...
| rajbot wrote:
| > SiriusXM also owns Spotify
|
| Sirius XM (nasdaq:SIRI) and Spotify (nyse:SPOT) are two
| different companies.
|
| Sirius XM bought pandora in 2019.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Its a vicious cycle: he got a bit crazy and anti-vax, hes in
| Austin so its 10 times harder to get good guests, and that makes
| it all the easier to lean into being antivax etc.
| andrewon wrote:
| The drop after switch makes sense. There's gotta to be
| significant number of people won't switch to Spotify just because
| of Joe Rogan's show. Half of them is about right.
|
| His show is just one of many in my queue. I won't go through the
| troubleshoot of using two apps for podcast just because of him.
| [deleted]
| diragon wrote:
| Spotify snatching exclusive podcasts made me quit Spotify for
| music as well. That's a grab that I do not tolerate.
|
| This further cements the fact that IPO is a near certain death
| sentence for a product.
| LegitShady wrote:
| its too bad the app for youtube music is so horrible. How does
| it still not have a horizontal mode? How many goldfish are they
| paying to develop that app?
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| I don't blaming him for taking the money from Spotify. He has
| ensured his descendants' wealth for probably a few generations.
| Good for him.
|
| I still see clips of him on YouTube. How does that work given his
| deal with Spotify, anyone know?
| wrink wrote:
| They are are allowed to upload snippets but are limited in
| length and number of clips they are permitted to upload per
| episode. I assume they provide the allowance for purely
| promotional reasons. Personally, I find the clips too short to
| be particularly interesting
| theodric wrote:
| I know we're supposed to only contribute commentary that
| productively advances the conversation, but the thought that
| keeps bubbling back to the top for me is "lol noob, you sold out;
| you got what you asked for"
|
| -\\_(tsu)_/-
| MauroIksem wrote:
| Not surprised..i stopped listening when he moved. It was
| entertaining but not enough for me to move podcast platforms.
| eplanit wrote:
| Rumble is gaining popularity; maybe he should move there.
| kiawe_fire wrote:
| I noticed a similar trend with Howard Stern and others once
| signing on with SiriusXM.
|
| My unsubstantiated take: audio has to be ubiquitous to work. It's
| somehow more commoditized than video or other mediums.
|
| If it's a radio show / podcast, you already have your "player" of
| choice (AM/FM radio, or a particular mobile app) and you expect
| the audio to work like tuning a radio station to your syndicated
| show, or putting in a CD, and the player just plays it.
|
| For some reason with video streaming, we equate services like
| Netflix with TV networks, so exclusivity is ok.
|
| But audio apps and services don't feel like different stations or
| CDs, they feel like different mediums entirely. So while Netflix
| is to Hulu as NBC is to HGTV, Spotify is to Apple Music as CDs
| are to MiniDisc.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| This is less a problem for Joe than it is for his advertisers. I
| wonder about the effectiveness of pre-roll ads vs extremely
| annoying mid-sentence ad breaks scattered through the episode.
| Use to be joe was one of the more enjoyable blocks of 3 hour
| content to listen to because there were no commercial breaks.
| m0zg wrote:
| Maybe it's for the best. He's a comedian who doesn't know
| anything about anything (and freely admits this to be the case),
| he shouldn't really have that much "influence". $100M in the bank
| sure is nice, I bet.
| sammalloy wrote:
| I agree with everything that's already been said in this thread,
| but I've noticed one thing that hasn't been discussed at all.
|
| I live in a rural area where network connectivity is poor at
| worst and intermittent at best. I spent years watching Rogan on
| YouTube with nothing but network problems. Watching Rogan was a
| chore in the previous scenario, and YouTube did not make it easy.
|
| Once Rogan moved to Spotify, I never had a single problem with
| network connectivity. I could use the app to seamlessly switch
| between audio and video, and it was easy to both find and browse
| previous podcasts and quickly queue them up to play or watch. I
| could never do this before in a poor connectivity environment,
| but Spotify made all of this possible.
| rchaud wrote:
| Youtube automatically switches to the lowest bitrate if it
| detects a slow network. Was it still too slow at 360p?
|
| I used NewPipe to download the YT vids ahead of time. It has
| the option to download only the audio streams, so a lot of
| bandwidth can be saved that way as well.
| sammalloy wrote:
| I should note, I was not using the YouTube app, I was using
| the Safari browser on my iPhone all these years. To me, it
| seemed like a buffering problem, even at 360p. For whatever
| reason, Spotify loads immediately (or at worst, within five
| seconds) and gives me the best experience. Thanks for the tip
| about NewPipe.
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| His move to Spotify isn't why he sucked, but Joe really has gone
| off the ego end. If you listen to his early ustream podcasts, he
| was just funny stoner. Now he's just lost touch.
| paulpauper wrote:
| This is the weakest analysis I have ever seen for an article.
| It's just noise. The sample size is too small to make any
| inference. A combination of people quarantined due to covid , the
| election, and BLM hype is why 2020 was such a big year. Joe Rogan
| is still hugely influential. His comments in 2021 about vaccines
| made headlines everywhere.
| glonq wrote:
| I stopped listening to him around the time that he signed to
| spotify. But I think that was coincidental. I just got sick of
| how he's such a nutter and a dummy -- even though I like many
| things about who he is and what he does.
| ram_rar wrote:
| Spotify video leaves a lot to be desired as compared to youtube.
| They should stick to audio and improve on it. I dont understand,
| why do I need to go through ads for JR show even though I pay for
| spotify premium.
|
| The best part of youtube is that one could search through and get
| excerpts of the video. I could easily find JRs tidbits without
| the need of going through the entire interview. I still see some
| of the older excerpts in youtube, but less so in spotify.
| DantesKite wrote:
| He can always move back to YouTube after his Spotify deal is
| over, no problem.
|
| Joe Rogan never started the podcast for influence. It was just
| him shooting the breeze with friends.
|
| It just turned out that he was also one of the best interviewers
| on the planet.
|
| Good on Joe. Make that money. YouTube will always be waiting.
| towb wrote:
| Other than the show changing since the move Spotify just isn't a
| good media player, and it's a shitty podcast app.
| EGreg wrote:
| Why is he confined to spotify?
|
| Some centralized group i restricting his rights like the music
| industry used to bury albums and bands in the 80s?
|
| Meanwhile: https://www.rap-up.com/2021/08/10/tory-lanez-
| sells-1-million...
| [deleted]
| altacc wrote:
| Hearing "Exclusively on Spotify" on any podcast ad is a sure-fire
| way to make sure I never listen to an episode. One of the great
| features of podcasts is the flexibility in listening platform and
| I'd really rather not switch to Spotify's substandard user
| experience.
| radicalbyte wrote:
| I subscribe to Spotify but I dropped Rogan when he left. I have
| all my other podcasts in one app, listening history and all.
|
| Now I have to drop that because Spotify want to play monopoly?
| S** that.
| tantalor wrote:
| Scratching my head what "S**" means
| Fordec wrote:
| I assume "Sod", used in more British influenced cultures.
| Short for sodomy/sodomize. Usually a stand in for "F**" but
| a bit more cavalier/dismissive than angry.
| adolph wrote:
| That does sound spicier than placing tiles of vegetation.
| Ardon wrote:
| Sod? Maybe? People say "Sod that" in Britain. I don't know
| why you'd censor that though.
| rchaud wrote:
| They're buying up a lot of high-profile independent ones. Dax
| Shepard's Armchair Expert joined recently, and now the RSS feed
| is pretty bare.
| xnx wrote:
| So true. I wonder if RSS could make a comeback if it were
| marketed as "podcast for articles".
| soheil wrote:
| No because no popular publisher would stay the moment a $100m
| exclusive offer is made.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| I can't tell Mr. Rogan what to do, but I'll just quote from the
| wise old man, Neil Young:
|
| Ain't singin' for Pepsi, Ain't singin' for Coke, Ain't singin'
| for no one, Makes me look like a joke.
| [deleted]
| ssijak wrote:
| Lately it is getting harder to get an episode I want to listen
| to. 70-80% are comedian friend episodes which I have 0%
| inclination to listen to (I wonder how many people listen to them
| compared to other episodes) and then there are 10-20% guests
| either from MMA or boring 20x already told story about
| gender/vaccines/masks/invermectin/etc. And then there are 10% of
| interesting guests. Previously on youtube it was much better. I
| even enjoy listening to some quacks, like Graham Hanckok because
| he has interesting stories, but he does not even has that lately.
| clipradiowallet wrote:
| To me, Joe Rogan is permanently and fondly associated with the
| episodes of Chappelle Show with Tyrone Biggums.
| lanevorockz wrote:
| Joe Rogan knew his days on Big Tech Pravda were counted ... he
| took his audience and went to Spotify where he took the profit
| upfront. Much smarter than most people that only follow the
| leader and don't have one shred of critical thought.
| ed25519FUUU wrote:
| This sounds right to me. Big tech is very eager to deplatform
| anyone who holds contrarian views against the status quo, and
| this is especially true with regards to vaccine and politics.
|
| In some ways being on Spotify with a multimillion dollar
| contract actually offers some decent protection. Hopefully he's
| got a good contract.
| [deleted]
| devwastaken wrote:
| That's fine. An uneducated guy bringing on other uneducated guys
| that talk about something as if they're experts. Joe is an
| "average dude" who loves his disinformation and nodding his head
| to whatever BS someone says. People like words, personalities,
| hand waving. That's not where truth comes from. Truth is a hard
| fought battle that doesn't come to you in a podcast. It comes in
| written words, proofs, and is filled with uncertainty. Actual
| experts dont give black and white answers, they provide the
| information and context. People don't like that because it's
| complicated.
| hospes wrote:
| >> An uneducated guy bringing on other uneducated guys that
| talk about something as if they're experts.
|
| He often has leading scientists and subject matter experts on
| his podcasts.
|
| >> Joe is an "average dude"...
|
| Average dude who: - Created one of the largest
| English language podcasts.
|
| - Is a successful comedian who writes his own material.
|
| - Is a leading martial arts commentator and holds black belt
| himself.
|
| - Made $30M last year plus made $100M from the Spotify deal.
|
| I am not sure what is your metric that makes him average.
| FullKirby wrote:
| I heard experts give nuanced opinions on his podcast
| devwastaken wrote:
| I hear "experts" on the news too, yet they're also the source
| of conspiracy nuts. Why is that? Because they have no
| honesty, and also run many fakers.
| sk2020 wrote:
| > That's fine. An uneducated guy bringing on other uneducated
| guys that talk about something as if they're experts.
|
| I'm not sure that's distinct from the internet commentariat
| here or elsewhere.
| Zelphyr wrote:
| Money aside, I personally feel the Spotify deal was terrible for
| Rogan. He does more for Spotify than they do for him. Not least
| of which because Spotify, while pretty great for music, is
| _terrible_ as a podcast player.
|
| And, yeah, he has gone off the deep end since the Spotify deal.
| Somebody dumping a giant basket of cash on your doorstep probably
| does the ego no favors.
| ssijak wrote:
| Spotify is terrible for podcasts, but 100mil $ is enough (on
| top of $$$ he already has) to not care about nuances of does he
| gives them more than they gave him.
| busymom0 wrote:
| I think 100 million isn't much considering the amount of
| influence he has. I guess getting an upfront 100 million is
| better than over the years though. Does anyone know how long
| his contract is with Spotify? It's it's longer than 2-3 years
| then he's losing money imo.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| At first I thought he would be ok. His original gripe with
| Youtube was the censorship of controversial guests. Either he or
| Spotify prevented most of the controversial videos from being
| imported into Spotify so I guess the problem remains. Is there a
| platform that allows any/all controversial guests?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| The internet.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Advertisers don't want to advertise next to controversial
| guests, so if there's another platform they don't have 100
| megabucks to buy content with (I mean, podcasting is the most
| open platform of all before "exclusive podcasts" became a
| thing)
| opan wrote:
| He could use something like peertube or funkwhale.
| asdff wrote:
| or joerogan.com
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Anyone know any good alternatives?
|
| I listen to the Rachman Review on geo-politics and China Talk.
| But i dont think anyone else has as wide a range as Joe. Tim
| Ferris is ok but he's way more niche.
|
| https://www.ft.com/rachman-review
|
| https://chinatalkshow.libsyn.com/rss
| knorker wrote:
| No wonder. Spotify is the most broken piece of shit on the app
| stores by far.
|
| Hey, let me download these so i can listen on the plane. Oh, the
| app just hangs on startup when you're in airplane mode. Well
| that's pointless.
|
| And on and on.
|
| It's a wonder anyone even _can_ listen if they wanted to.
|
| Sorry, this comment is probably not HN material, but every time I
| use Spotify it makes me angry from how it just doesn't work.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Spotify has invested heavily in podcasts, not just Joe Rogan
| but a whole range of them at high costs. It baffles me that
| they would spend so much money on content and not invest in app
| development and design. Some businesses seem to have a major
| hate boner against paying for an appropriate number of high
| quality developers and designers. It's very penny proud and
| pound foolish.
| spideymans wrote:
| I'm disappointed that Spotify in particular is going through
| this. They had a best-in-class user experience just a few
| short years ago.
| cpach wrote:
| I actually like Spotify. For _music_ , though. Listening to
| podcasts in a music app - makes no sense to me. I have Overcast
| for that purpose and I see no reason to switch. I can
| understand that it was a good deal for Rogan personally if he
| got 100 million USD for exclusivity but for the average podcast
| host I believe that an open platform is much better.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| As an artist I do not like getting $50 per 1m plays.
| shkkmo wrote:
| Spotify works absolutely fine for me in Airplane mode. The
| reason I pay for Spotify is because it is the nest solution I
| have found for easily curating music for offline playback since
| I don't have unlimited data and I'm often outside of good
| coverage areas.
|
| It certainly isn't perfect and there are aspects of the UI I
| find frustrating, but offline access and playback are the
| features that seem to work the best.
|
| Edit: I also don't use Spotify for any podcasts and use other
| software since there are lots of great options for offline
| podcast listening that are way better than Spotify.
| vannevar wrote:
| It's questionable whether online 'influencers' actually influence
| anyone beyond getting them to watch or listen to their show. What
| they definitely have is an audience, and that is valuable to the
| advertisers and marketers who _do_ influence people, as well as
| prospective guests who want to promote themselves or a cause. I
| think influencers ' main value for advertisers is acting as a
| magnet for certain demographics, providing another way to do
| targeted marketing.
| psyc wrote:
| Well, there's this:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28302725
| Spivak wrote:
| Which is an absolutely fascinating case-study! It's easy to
| just write it off as "kids mimicking content creator for
| attention" but it goes so much deeper than this because it's
| a learned subconscious reaction to stress. It's like tapping
| your feet or biting your nails but interesting because it's
| verbal. It's kinda like if you say "like" or "um" to fill
| space when talking you never really have to think about it
| but you can stop if you practice.
| vannevar wrote:
| Maybe Joe's viewers will all start doing stand-up. :-)
|
| There was a marketing study of influencers from Rakuten
| Marketing that indicates that advertising through influencer
| channels produces positive sales results. But again, it's not
| clear that the influencer actually drove the purchases,
| versus just drawing an audience that was predisposed to make
| those purchases in the first place.
|
| https://www.iab.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2019/03/Rakuten-2019-...
| elliekelly wrote:
| If influencers didn't "influence" then advertisers wouldn't pay
| them. That's all "influence" is. Just a dressed up name for
| marketing.
| vannevar wrote:
| Not true. The owner of a TV station gets paid, and they
| aren't influencing anyone. They're simply brokering
| advertising. I'm open to evidence that influencers actually
| exert personal influence on their audience, I just haven't
| seen any yet.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| It's unfortunate. Some of his guests are quite interesting. I
| appreciated him having Abby Martin on the show.
|
| I have no idea why covid is such a popular topic on podcasts. Do
| people actually like hearing more about it, don't they already
| hear about it every day?
| jdprgm wrote:
| It's been frustrating watching the Spotify (and general movement)
| with podcasts fragmenting and going exclusive. Spotify won with
| music because it improved upon the existing state of listening to
| music and offered a free or cheap solution that was even a
| compelling alternative to piracy.
|
| Podcasts for the most part were in the ideal state for consumers,
| almost always free and mostly client independent distributed w/
| RSS. I don't think there is much of any argument that Spotify can
| improve that state for consumers by taking a podcast exclusive.
| These deals are just payouts for the hosts not investments that
| make the shows better. Most even very successful podcasts likely
| have low opex (some exceptions like NYT Daily) and don't benefit
| from a big pile of cash.
|
| On a different note regarding the Rogan Deal, Spotify took ages
| to add video streaming support on Apple TV (main way I would
| catch Rogan) which basically caused me to quit casual watching.
| They also only recently added offline playback for Apple Watch
| and even then it's premium exclusive and requires manual
| downloading of eps. I don't understand at all why an enormous
| company like Spotify is so neglectful of the entire apple
| ecosystem.
| gsich wrote:
| Podcasts without RSS are not podcasts. Sure you can have
| several distribution methods, but if not one of them is RSS ...
| mastrsushi wrote:
| > Podcasts without RSS are not podcasts
|
| The rest of the world seems to think otherwise....
| seanf wrote:
| _I don 't understand at all why an enormous company like
| Spotify is so neglectful of the entire apple ecosystem._
|
| Part of this might be the legal friction between Spotify and
| Apple in the past. Here's an article that describes a coalition
| that Epic Games, Spotify, and others formed just last year to
| counter Apple's platform cut.
| https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/09/epic-spotify-and-oth...
| judge2020 wrote:
| The situation isn't much better on desktop; I don't think
| they're specifically neglecting Apple.
| teekert wrote:
| They are unionizing...
| dalbasal wrote:
| It's all competition for monopoly. No one "owned" podcasting,
| like itunes own streaming music and youtube own free-to-air TV.
| Spotify is trying to be the one that owns it.
|
| They bought exclusivity to as many top podcasts as they could
| in order to start centralize podcasting on their platform.
| Eventually enough momentum shifts, and all the other podcasters
| have to go where users go, spotify. They may or may not
| succeed.
|
| The whole thing is quite sad. Podcasts are/were one the the
| free digital medias. No mediation. Standard protocol. The
| client is just a client. No one tells you what to say, or
| controls who listens to what. I wish FB and youtube were that.
|
| We the geeks have done a terrible job of defining and promoting
| digital freedom. Failed to find a way that doesn't sound like a
| paranoid eff rant. I don't think Joe really understood that RSS
| is a Free (as in freedom) media, perhaps the last. He probably
| thought about it as Youtube-vs-Spotify, with Apple and other
| RSS clients being more of the same.
| mikewave wrote:
| > Spotify is trying to be the one that owns it.
|
| If you're interested in pushing back on this, the Podcasting
| 2.0 community welcomes you. Check out
| https://podcastindex.org/ for details.
|
| Podcast 2.0 apps have more metadata, chapters, cover art that
| can change like a slideshow during an episode, etc.
| jnosCo wrote:
| I think you're giving Rogan too much credit if you think he
| even for a second would care about Freedom while staring at a
| 9 figure check.
| teawrecks wrote:
| > No one "owned" podcasting, like itunes own streaming
| music...Podcasts are/were one the the free digital medias.
|
| Ironic considering the origin of the term "podcast".
| Covzire wrote:
| The ads on Spotify for paying US users is what keeps me off of
| it for the most part. You can fast forward but it's a gigantic
| pain in the ass.
|
| Their UX is awful too compared to a simple web app, they should
| just clone a basic Youtube/Odysee/Rumble functionality for
| their video side.
| xxpor wrote:
| >You can fast forward but it's a gigantic pain in the ass.
|
| Does Spotify not support FF == skip 10 seconds forward that
| every other podcast player does? I have genuinely no idea,
| but it wouldn't surprise me.
| ub99 wrote:
| These long ads are actually separate tracks, so you can
| just skip to the end. The pain in the ass aspect comes
| mostly from the fact that not everyone has the app open in
| front of them.
| gmueckl wrote:
| When playing podcasts, Spotify skips 15 seconds forwards or
| backwards. When playing music, it skips to the next track
| or the start of the current track. But you still have to
| actively skip ads, which is annoying.
| dadver wrote:
| Wait, -paying- users get ads in the US? Then why do they pay?
| Covzire wrote:
| I'm assuming for the privilege of fast forwarding them, but
| I'm not sure, it's probably the biggest reason I can't feel
| any affinity for the platform at all. I'm happy to chip in
| for the service like i do with Youtube Premium, but come
| on. They're not short ads either, and I think most of them
| are put in place by Joe Rogan himself because they're often
| him going on for 2-3 minutes.
| dntrkv wrote:
| It's only the ads that the podcasters put in themselves.
| They are not the Spotify ads.
| ub99 wrote:
| This makes me wonder... would Spotify allow ads in music?
| Can I upload a music track that has an ad in the middle?
| Hmm...
| kingofpandora wrote:
| I don't have Spotify, but check if The Who Sell Out is
| there since that has ads in it.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Who_Sell_Out
| ub99 wrote:
| Pretty sure they used fake ads, but it's a good precedent
| anyway.
|
| Edit: and yes the album is available on Spotify in full.
| serf wrote:
| > Pretty sure they used fake ads, but it's a good
| precedent anyway.
|
| the ads aren't fake.. well, not all of them -- they're
| included ironically -- and many aspects of that album
| generated legal issues for the band.[0]
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Who_Sell_Out
| FillardMillmore wrote:
| The whole album was supposed to be a play on a pirate
| radio station if memory serves, and a damn good one at
| that. Probably my favorite Who album honestly (besides
| Live at Leeds, of course).
| p49k wrote:
| Even the podcasts that Spotify owns and produces have
| ads. So in that case they are putting ads in their own
| podcasts for their own paying customers.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| It does seem like double-dipping. But I imagine they will
| continue to include more and more advertising until they
| reached the threshold where people unsubscribe.
| njovin wrote:
| It's odd, though, that Rogan's podcast only started doing
| mid-episode ads after the move to Spotify. Prior to the
| move the only ads were at the beginning of the episode.
| jack_pp wrote:
| I've never heard ads on Rogan's podcast in the past few
| years, this might be a US only thing
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Maybe analytics indicated that people were skipping the
| first chunk of the show to avoid the ads. I know that is
| a common feature of other podcast players.
| ub99 wrote:
| I am surprised you are getting downvoted. Very long ad breaks
| on paid accounts are unacceptable and the reason I refuse to
| listen to this podcast.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| notRobot wrote:
| Spotify sucks on Android too - so idk what they think they're
| doing. I think iOS (specifically just iPhone) is the only place
| where they appear to work on improving their app.
| smolyeet wrote:
| I don't think so, least in part. Spotify is continuously
| petty against apple (for good reason) but their users always
| have to pay the price and not have features or get them super
| late. The Spotify app on an Android is pretty good and can't
| really notice too much difference upon switching back.
| They've really downsized their app a lot across all three
| platforms.
| polote wrote:
| > These deals are just payouts for the hosts not investments
| that make the shows better
|
| Honestly I don't think Spotify bought podcasts to make money
| from it, they just want people to associate the word "podcast"
| with the app Spotify. And so far that works because no other
| app gained significant momentum.
|
| The fact that less people watch the show is almost irrelevant
| handmodel wrote:
| I think the model of giving away Joe Rogan to all users of
| Spotify (even if not paying subscribers) is worst of all worlds
| from a business POV.
|
| Think how many people still subscribe and pay over ten dollars
| a month to listen to Howard Stern. I subscribe to a few
| podcasts on patreon at $5 just for the few bonus episodes. And
| I have trouble believing the ad revenue Spotify gets for this
| is anywhere close to what paying customers could be for them.
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| In Joe Rogan's case, I doubt people would pay.
|
| Then again, I haven't been able to understand his success.
|
| I cringe when he calls himself a Comedian.
|
| I cringe when he talks science. (Always felt someone should
| sit down with him and explain The Placebo Effect, and The
| Scientific Method, and what goes into a good Clinical study.
| I would be shocked if he ever even took Psy 101.)
|
| Is it the upfront pot use that garners so many admirers?
|
| He does know his MMA though.
|
| I have enjoyed his interviews, but it's the guests I find
| interesting.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Well, maybe it's more strategic than just short-term dollars
| and cents.
|
| For example, there must be a lot of value in training people
| to use Spotify for podcasts at all, starting with the biggest
| podcast in the world. As more people use Spotify for
| podcasts, Spotify gets more and more power for future
| exclusivity negotiations.
|
| Spotify was certainly just a music app for me until I had to
| start using it to listen to Joe Rogan, and it seems
| reasonable that the Joe Rogan move was to create this
| transition in Spotify users. They clearly don't just want to
| be a music app.
| INTPenis wrote:
| The discussions about Rogans social responsibility are just
| silly. He's an entertainer. People need to understand that.
|
| But his influence dropping, I'm not at all surprised. I used to
| follow him until he moved to Spotify. Now I only catch the
| occasional clip on Youtube. And I've actually forced myself to
| endure the awful spotify UI for some special episodes like Dave
| Chappelle.
|
| But otherwise I'd rather avoid that mess. It's truly awful.
|
| I don't see how Spotify won anything, as some in this thread are
| saying. Youtube still gives you maximum exposure, and for just a
| little more than what Spotify charges you get essentially the
| same music catalogue, AND youtube premium ad free. I can't deny
| that's a good deal to me. I haven't watched TV since 2010,
| Youtube has way too much content in truth.
| dnissley wrote:
| I have to say this seems utterly un-noteworthy. "Person whose
| content was free now reaching a smaller audience now that their
| content is behind a paywall".
| glitchc wrote:
| Good. Rogan spouts a great deal of rubbish on topics he knows
| very little about. His interviews are good though, some of them.
|
| Edit: Added "some of them"
| fossuser wrote:
| It's a mistake for someone with a massive audience and their own
| platform to give that up.
|
| There's a reason Spotify paid him one hundred million dollars (or
| whatever it was) - he thought he was getting the better side of
| that deal, but he was wrong.
|
| What Spotify is doing is worse for users, but also worse for
| content creators in the long run. Giving up control of your
| distribution is a mistake.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Joe who?
| LAC-Tech wrote:
| He's still a lot more influential than The Verge
| danschumann wrote:
| As a paying customer, I wonder what I'm paying for when I get a
| 15 minute ad of Joe Rogan hard pitching me something.
| lolsal wrote:
| Who is Joe Rogen and why would I care?
| throwaway4good wrote:
| Joe Rogan would be losing influence regardless if he was confined
| to Spotify, simply due to the competition. There is just so much
| more podcasting done today than there was two years ago, when he
| took the deal.
| mhh__ wrote:
| I have definitely enjoyed parts of his show a lot, but I
| genuinely think him becoming less influential (which I don't
| quite buy) is a good thing societally.
| pandeiro wrote:
| Not surprised this degenerated immediately into a mass ranting
| session about pandemic science with pretty much the entire
| catalog of cognitive biases and logical fallacies on display.
|
| I guess that's interesting to some, from a sociological
| standpoint, but for me, there's more than enough of this on
| literally every other social media platform.
|
| I'm interested in a discussion about the actual dynamic of
| spotify vs youtube dissemination and whether the claims made in
| the article are valid. Because the entire premise is backed by
| the "secondary metric" of how many Twitter followers a guest's
| account grew by -- this seems pretty ripe for confounding
| variables, like the appeal of the guest, auxiliary appearances
| elsewhere, the news cycle at the time overlapping with the
| guest's subject matter, and other things.
|
| Curious what others think of this.
| Thorentis wrote:
| Maybe it's the time of day, but HN is usually good at cutting
| through the usual politicised stuff, and just discussing the
| issue at hand.
|
| At the end of the day, Spotify isn't a Podcasts platform, and
| nobody I know associates Spotify with podcasts. Surely somebody
| on Rogan's team knew this, but I suspect the money was simply
| too good to pass up. Imagine starting a FinTech SaaS with the
| sole purpose of being acquired, and then being offered $100m by
| a Biotech company. I'd probably take it.
| jessaustin wrote:
| There is probably something to this analysis, particularly for
| _new_ listeners. (Rogan might be big enough that new listeners
| are less important?) Spotify has chosen not to use these other
| platforms to the extent that it could use them. This is an
| example (perhaps the canonical one?) of Ben Thompson 's
| "strategy tax". For an individual podcast, it would be better
| to have _something_ on all platforms /protocols/modalities.
| They want to attract Youtube viewers as well as RSS subscribers
| as well as everyone else. A capitalist firm like Spotify that
| wants to make a little money every time anyone ever listens to
| anything is comfortable losing a bit on every show it produces,
| if it can convince investors that doing so could bring about
| their favored apocalypse of rent-seeking. Each show is taxed to
| benefit the firm's long-term strategy.
|
| Spofity seems to have modeled its Rogan acquisition as a
| platform crossover event. Lots of loyal Rogan listeners had
| never installed a Spotify app, and now a certain percentage of
| those people have. However, the way Spofity have structured
| this, as a one-time thing in which Rogan no longer reaches
| other platforms in comparable ways, seems to limit the
| potential benefit of this maneuver.
|
| The reason I no longer listen to Rogan's podcast is that it is
| no longer an actual podcast. My players are still pointed at
| his RSS feed, but that thing is dead. I have no interest in
| using special apps published by Spotify to listen to something
| that used to be available in the normal way. I realize that is
| a fairly odd preference, but it satisfies the categorical
| imperative. I'm not the only person who strongly prefers to
| listen in a particular way. Spofity's strategy is different
| from that of many patronage-supported podcasts, which publish
| e.g. half of their episodes publicly, with ads encouraging
| people who would like more episodes to send money. Those
| podcasts are marketed in a more open way than Rogan's.
| qwertyuiop_ wrote:
| > _To do this, we pulled data from the analytics tool Social
| Blade to track the Twitter following of every guest who went on
| Rogan's podcast between December 2019 and July 2021. Guests
| generally see a surge of new followers after appearing on the
| show, with some gaining as many as 18,000 new followers in the
| week following their chat, and that effect has grown over time as
| The Joe Rogan Experience gained popularity._
|
| This is based on post show Twitter following of the guests. What
| if his loyal listeners are not into Twitter and are leaving.
| comodore_ wrote:
| on top of that they highlight repeat guests which makes no
| sense. and the fact that they highlight them specifically is
| very fishy.
| xutopia wrote:
| To be fair... his move to Spotify coincided with him spewing more
| and more anti-vax and anti-mask drivel that I don't have any
| interest in listening to.
| timr wrote:
| > his move to Spotify coincided with him spewing more and more
| anti-vax and anti-mask drivel that I don't have any interest in
| listening to
|
| I listen to his show sometimes, and while I've heard him have
| guests on from all sides of these issues, at no point have I
| heard him be anything less than a thoughtful, critical
| interviewer.
|
| If that's "drivel", we need more drivel. I'll certainly take it
| over everything I see on cable news, which is laser-focused on
| advancing a particular narrative, and demonizing anything and
| anyone who might deviate from that narrative.
| valine wrote:
| Giving a platform to crackpots isn't always dangerous, but in
| the case of vaccines it's a public health concern. It's
| definitely not a good idea to give legitimacy to antivaxers
| during a pandemic when people dying. Save that conversation
| for another time.
| the_third_wave wrote:
| Equating any criticism of the strategies pushed by the
| medical establishment as "antivaxx" is just as
| counterproductive as calling everything "racist" or
| "transphobic" or "homophobic" or any of the other epithets
| being bandied around by the new puritans. Words have
| meanings, these meanings can change over time (language
| evolves) but forcing them to change to fit a given
| narrative leads to an unhealthy political and social
| climate. It is what Orwell wrote about in "1984", what
| Solzhenitsyn wrote about in "The First Circle", what
| Bradbury wrote about in "Fahrenheit 451", none of which
| were meant as user manuals for a healthy society.
| timr wrote:
| I am a free speech absolutist. The answer to speech you
| don't like is more speech, not censorship.
| suzzer99 wrote:
| Yes, more speech is always the answer. Which is why the
| unmoderated internet is a such a bastion of enlightened,
| thoughtful discourse.
| gjs278 wrote:
| it is if you're not fragile
| lghh wrote:
| Say I'm an interviewer running a podcast about SaaS
| startups. Which is more useful?
|
| 1. I interview a handful of people who have differing
| opinions on what it takes to lead a SaaS startup who have
| all had successful exist, but have differing opinions on
| key issues. Maybe throw in a few people who have
| experience working in that type of environment, but maybe
| not leading, if you want a little more variety.
|
| 2. I interview someone who has led a successful exit like
| in (1), but I also interview a full time commission
| visual artist who has never worked at a SaaS startup. I
| give both their ideas on how to run a SaaS startup equal
| weight, even when the visual artist isn't making any
| sense in the context of the conversation or is spewing
| nonsense in the context of the conversation.
|
| Joe does (2). They are both "free speech", but only one
| is actually useful.
| dexterdog wrote:
| Number 1 is not very good because you're only taking to
| people who had successful exits so you're already skewing
| the conversation.
| manigandham wrote:
| When did "useful" become a metric for this podcast?
| [deleted]
| Applejinx wrote:
| I'm not... not anymore... after observing stuff like
| this. Like Joe, like some of his guests, like the results
| of how things have shaken out.
|
| Notably, free speech absolutism is impossible to refute
| if everyone is arguing in good faith. Since quite a few
| influential political actors are demonstrably not, and
| are following well-defined tactics dating back to various
| fascist regimes such as those who produced WWII, it is
| insane to pretend everyone is arguing in good faith.
|
| And it is both instructive and dismaying to see that the
| people most obviously arguing in bad faith have a
| tendency to insist, and get others to insist, that free
| speech must be absolute and that everyone must be taken
| with the assumption that they're arguing in good faith.
|
| Tactically, it makes perfect sense, but it's a hell of an
| exploit.
| timr wrote:
| The bottom line is I don't trust you to decide what
| should be censored. You don't trust me.
|
| There is no workable censorship regime that does not
| devolve into ideological warfare.
| depaya wrote:
| This has nothing to do with censorship. This person is
| saying it is irresponsible for Rogan to entertain and
| provide a platform for these things.
| swayvil wrote:
| And irresponsible people should be censored.
|
| Lol.
| Bud wrote:
| Please don't spread confusion about what "free speech"
| means. I'm sure you are not actually confused about this,
| so please do not pretend to be.
|
| Having some people not appear on a given podcast is not a
| "free speech" issue. Choosing to not be a dangerous idiot
| by having dangerous idiots on your show during a pandemic
| is not "censorship" or anything remotely close to
| censorship as it is commonly, and correctly, understood.
| timr wrote:
| > Please don't spread confusion about what "free speech"
| means.
|
| I'm not confused.
|
| > Choosing to not be a dangerous idiot by having
| dangerous idiots on your show during a pandemic is not
| "censorship" or anything remotely close to censorship as
| it is commonly, and correctly, understood.
|
| When someone decides _for me_ that "dangerous idiots"
| should not have a voice -- for whatever justification --
| I'm against them having the ability to act on that
| impulse. The wonderful thing about free speech is that if
| you don't like it, you're free not to listen to it.
|
| Every censor has started from the premise that they're
| doing good. I don't agree with your opinions, and I'm not
| so feeble-minded as to be unable to decide for myself
| what I see.
| swayvil wrote:
| And who picks the "dangerous idiots"? You? Your favorite
| authority?
|
| Ha ha.
| WalterBright wrote:
| It _is_ censorship when the government leans on you to
| not promulgate ideas the government decides are false.
| likeclockwork wrote:
| You're the only one bringing the Government into this.
| WalterBright wrote:
| The government has been leaning on to social media
| companies telling them to self-censor or the government
| will do it for them.
| likeclockwork wrote:
| And none of that is what this discussion was ever about.
|
| Conflating criticism with calls for government censorship
| is a dishonest rhetorical tactic.
| [deleted]
| djur wrote:
| Speech such as "this guy is full of it, don't listen to
| him"?
| dexterdog wrote:
| Which is fine to say as long as you are not making it so
| people can't listen to him if they want it.
| valine wrote:
| I'm all for free speech in the sense that you have the
| right to say what you want without retribution from the
| government. Free speech doesn't mean you have the right
| to an audience.
| secondcoming wrote:
| Looks like your comment is losing its right to an
| audience
| valine wrote:
| You clearly read it so maybe not.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I don't think accusations of spewing anti-vax and anti-mask
| drivel have anything to do with his interviewing skills.
| They're certainly not mutually exclusive. The parent
| commenter didn't make any accusations about his interviewing
| skills.
| paxys wrote:
| How is calling men who wear masks "pussies" while disagreeing
| with your guest about it being a thoughtful and critical
| interviewer?
| nabla9 wrote:
| > I heard him be anything less than a thoughtful, critical
| interviewer.
|
| He is the least critical interviewer you can imagine. Being
| uncritical and hyped up is his trademark. He is Mr. Softball
| to the extent he is made of fun for it.
|
| He is not thoughtful. He has talent of speaking endlessly and
| keeping it going endlessly.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| Sometimes the point of a talkshow is to get the guest to do
| the majority of the talking. Other talk shows take the
| opposite approach and the guest is just a vehicle to let
| the host pontificate. Neither is superior.
| kadoban wrote:
| When you have extremists on and don't challenge what they're
| saying, that _is_ pushing a narrative.
|
| The whole "both sides" thing is the _worst_ of cable news and
| why I signed off years ago. Does the Sun orbit the Earth?
| Let's get a crazy person on and see. It's okay because we'll
| give an expert a few minutes too.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| You see an equivalency between discussing new vaccine
| technologies for a novel virus, and discussing whether the
| Sun orbits the Earth?
| titzer wrote:
| Yeah, when they spout obviously false, easily-checkable
| things like "it alters your DNA" that are clearly
| intended to scare people.
| WalterBright wrote:
| From my frame of reference, the Sun indeed revolves around
| the Earth.
|
| Just like the chair you're sitting in is stationary
| according to your frame of reference, while from another it
| is hurtling through space.
| WalterBright wrote:
| For the naysayers: have you ever said "The Sun rises in
| the east?"?
|
| I bet you have. From your frame of reference, the Sun
| revolves around the Earth.
|
| I also bet if I asked you "which direction should be a
| rocket be launched into earth orbit to minimize fuel
| consumption" you'll have to stop and think about it.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Not in any normal way; the geocentricists tried to build
| mechanical models but the increasing number of epicycles
| was a big clue that the system was in fact heliocentric.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I well understand the history of this topic, after all, I
| have two years of Caltech physics :-) Nevertheless, as
| Einstein demonstrated, things look very different
| depending on the frame of reference.
|
| There's no such thing as a "normal" frame of reference.
|
| > the geocentricists tried to build mechanical models but
| the increasing number of epicycles was a big clue that
| the system was in fact heliocentric.
|
| Not exactly, it was a big clue that the planets did not
| move in perfect circles. The mechanical models did not
| provide any evidence of heliocentrism. It was Galileo's
| observations of Venus that torpedoed the geocentric
| theory.
| ithkuil wrote:
| Does relativity apply also to rotating reference frames?
| WalterBright wrote:
| Of course.
| kadoban wrote:
| Is which object orbits which actually relative to a
| reference frame though? Does not seem like it should be.
|
| The Sun has a certain mass, the Earth has a certain mass,
| the center of the point of orbit of both (barycenter?
| That seems to be the right term) is inside of the Sun no
| matter what frame you hang out in. What am I missing?
| WalterBright wrote:
| You can set up whatever frame of reference works best for
| a situation. We do it all the time. It's very convenient
| for us earthers to use a geocentric framing of the
| universe for our daily life, where the skies revolve
| around the Earth. We do it every day.
|
| Such as the word "sunrise" is very geocentric. We don't
| even have a word for the heliocentric term for the same
| thing. We also use geocentric phrases like "jets chasing
| the Sun" and "sundials track the movement of the Sun",
| etc.
| brandmeyer wrote:
| NIST Technical Note 1385 "GPS Receivers and Relativity"
| by Ashby and Weiss discusses how to solve the GPS
| positioning equations in a relativistically correct way.
| It turns out that since the frame of reference (Earth-
| Centered/Earth-Fixed) is rotating, it is non-inertial and
| you have to apply some corrections to do the job right.
| foldr wrote:
| Copernicus' heliocentric system actually had more
| epicycles than contemporary Ptolemaic models.
| manigandham wrote:
| > _" both sides" thing is the _worst_ of cable news_
|
| It used to be the best when there was regulation that made
| sure equal amounts of attention were devoted to both sides
| of an issue with proper research.
|
| What we have today are ideological echo chambers with some
| caricature of an opposing side, not actual debate.
| lamontcg wrote:
| Yeah, he was always that way and he was always a gateway
| drug to the alt-right.
| manigandham wrote:
| He's had plenty of prominent leftist guests like Bernie
| Sanders, and most of his comedian and artist friends are
| left-leaning, and he leans left himself. How is this a
| gateway to the alt-right? At some point these accusations
| just become meaningless.
| ajkjk wrote:
| The claim isn't that he was a gateway to the alt-right
| _by having only a certain kind of guest_, or anything
| like that, so that's not really a counterargument.
| lamontcg wrote:
| Yeah, you can be so open-minded that every piece of
| drivel just slides easily through your mind. That isn't
| being well informed. You actually need good filters and
| know what they're based upon.
|
| Props to Bernie for taking the battle to the middle
| ground though and not preaching only to the choir. He
| kind of got shit on for that as well.
| manigandham wrote:
| I said him and his friends lean left too, so what else
| makes it a gateway? These claims are always vague and
| unfounded.
| teknofobi wrote:
| Joe Rogan leans left in the same way someone that starts
| their sentences with "I'm not rasist, but ..." aren't
| racists. It's just a rhetorical device to convince you
| that they don't believe in labels, and then they
| immediately use their actions and words to demonstrate
| that they fit the textbook description of the label.
|
| > They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to
| challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is
| their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly,
| since he believes in words.
| manigandham wrote:
| It's the labels that are the problem, used by
| unreasonable people to create even more division. Very
| few people fit a single side on all issues.
| [deleted]
| dexterdog wrote:
| That's a hell of a lot better than what we get now which is
| "we'll pick a single expert and nobody is allowed to
| question him because we know that his truth is the right
| truth."
| beaner wrote:
| Ok great, so you've picked a side and have your ears shut.
| Don't act like everyone else should adopt that attitude.
| hobs wrote:
| Well, we haven't proven you're not an (insert horrible
| slur here) so let's have an endless stream of guests
| speculate on whether or not you are!
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _you 've picked a side and have your ears shut_
|
| OP doesn't claim Rogan should be de-platofrmed. Just that
| pushing batshit theories is an explanation for his
| declining influence. I enjoy watching flat earthers from
| time to time. But I'm not going to make it a part of my
| information diet.
| pengaru wrote:
| No, he's become much more narrative/agenda/propaganda
| propagating and conspiracy theory fueling in recent years.
|
| I used to listen when there were an interesting guest just to
| hear them talk at length about their profession/passions, but
| it's no longer worth it if the cost is giving rogan a podium
| for his self-proclaimed-moron-disclaimed pot-stirring
| efforts.
| lghh wrote:
| But "both sides of an issue" is, in this situation, the right
| side of an issue and the wrong side of an issue.
|
| That's like saying he has guests on both sides of the flat
| earth issue, except there are actual lives at stake.
| WalterBright wrote:
| The point of listening to "wrong" sides of an issue is to
| see how well your "right" side stands up to scrutiny.
|
| The history of science is full of obviously right things
| that turned out be be wrong.
|
| Even Einstein, who upended Newtonian Mechanics, rejected
| Quantum Mechanics, since "God doesn't play dice with the
| universe".
| jessaustin wrote:
| "Both sides" is often two wrong sides. The world is not
| binary. Those who only listen to both sides might never
| notice that.
| klaudius wrote:
| I suggest you read the book "Virus Mania" for a more skeptical
| look on epidemics, masks and vaccines.
| technothrasher wrote:
| That book is as far from "skeptical" as you can get. Denying
| the very existence of viruses is not skeptical, it's
| credulity.
| glonq wrote:
| Yeah, that's about exactly when I stopped listening to him.
| Listening to him talk shop with other comedians was always
| entertaining. But "serious" Joe is a whackjob, yes-man, and
| meat-head.
| delaaxe wrote:
| I got tired of the excessive gender pronoun politics bs
| tyleo wrote:
| This has been my experience as well. Another commenter
| mentioned this but I also feel like guests have been less
| interesting since the move to Austin. I used to be a daily
| listener now I feel like it can be months between interesting
| episodes.
| asdff wrote:
| Easier to find someone available to drive to a studio in LA
| than to have them fly out of LAX to Austin.
| edge17 wrote:
| If anyone wants a datapoint, I stop listening to podcasts once
| they go to Spotify. I use Overcast, and generally don't have
| the wherewithal to chase content. I'm guessing there are more
| like me. I was an infrequent listener to Joe Rogan, but now I
| am not a listener at all (because it moved to Spotify).
|
| Also, there seems to be a lot of judgement of the kind of
| person Joe Rogan is (conspiracy, etc) in the comments. I have
| never once listened to Joe Rogan to listen to Joe Rogan. The
| fact of the matter is he gets fantastic guests doing long form
| conversations. I only ever showed up for the guests. Generally
| also the case for many other podcasts, Lex Friedman, Tim
| Ferris, etc.... the value they bring is more the guests they
| attract and the space they create for the guest.
|
| I guess it would be interesting to deep fake the voice of the
| host and see how many people actually cared about the host.
| kybernetikos wrote:
| > I guess it would be interesting to deep fake the voice of
| the host and see how many people actually cared about the
| host.
|
| I wonder how good GPT would be at generating questions to a
| guest based on their work and interests. Having a GPT driven
| interviewer could be quite interesting as a gimmick.
| rednerrus wrote:
| Same
| mavhc wrote:
| There's 1000 sane hosts who have the same interesting guests
| though, don't support the crazy people, we've seen where that
| leads us
| jessaustin wrote:
| Name ten.
| jseliger wrote:
| I was also an idle subscriber: I'd start listening to perhaps
| one in five episodes, with guests who interest me (think of
| people like Elon Musk or Jonathan Haidt). When Rogan left
| Apple podcasts/Stitcher, I stopped listening. Your statement
| echoes how I feel: "I only ever showed up for the guests.
| Generally also the case for many other podcasts, Lex
| Friedman, Tim Ferris, etc.... the value they bring is more
| the guests they attract and the space they create for the
| guest."
| dexterdog wrote:
| I'm the same way. I used to listen to Stern on the radio for
| my morning drive but never considered for a second going
| satellite when he did. There were plenty of options.
| personlurking wrote:
| You basically explained my view and feelings on the matter. I
| watched maybe 10 episodes per year on YT but once it went to
| Spotify, I don't watch at all.
|
| Coincidentally, around the same time he went to Spotify, I
| started getting really annoyed at his butting in and his
| opinions on matters that his guests know a lot more about.
| I've caught a clip or two on YT in recent months and I skip
| over any parts where the camera is on Joe, so I can just hear
| the guest.
| paxys wrote:
| Exactly this. I used to be a fan of the podcast and have no
| problem listening to it on Spotify. It just stopped being
| interesting.
| isoskeles wrote:
| The discussion here is really distracting. Came to read
| thoughts about Joe Rogan, and now it's just people arguing
| about COVID-19.
| patchorang wrote:
| Sounds like an episode of joe Rogan.
| ajuc wrote:
| I like his choice of guests (high percentage of scientists and
| interesting people, even if some of them are conspiracy
| theorists) and that he mostly lets people talk. But I lost a
| lot of respect for him after his recent MMA commentary. I've
| never seen such biased commentary in any sport as his in
| Adesanya vs Blachowicz. It was absurd.
| fatcoward wrote:
| > Look at me. I'm a fat coward who gets upset when people say I
| should lose weight instead of wearing a mask and getting a
| vaccine.
|
| > Ooooh boy I can't wait to get my Fellas (YC 2021) pills so I
| can lose all this fat off of my back. Teehee.
|
| > Don't forget, we should also all eat soy/tofu and ban guns.
| :) Guns are scary.
|
| > I'm a fat faggot. :)
| Graffur wrote:
| I listen to him on Spotify and this is just incorrect. The use
| of the word 'spew' indicates you might have an agenda.
| xx511134bz wrote:
| Drivel is also a giveaway. A social credit score is being
| erected all around us, yet people complain about "conspiracy
| theorists", unbelievable!
|
| Australia is basically a prison now. Turn on "Show Dead" if
| you want to see the good comments.
|
| Doctor shows how the "COVID-19 vaccine" damages vital organs
| in the body - see the shocking evidence
|
| https://endtimes.video/doctor-covid19-vaccine-dangers/
| yokoprime wrote:
| I agree, it's more of a constant undercurrent
| [deleted]
| president wrote:
| Calling people anti-vax and anti-mask when they clearly aren't
| is no different from bullying. By the way, there are plenty of
| scientists from top institutions like Stanford and even Nobel
| Prize winners who have spoken against many of the mainstream
| Covid narratives. Not sure how people like you with no medical
| domain expertise and experience have the gall to question valid
| concerns from respected doctors and scientists.
|
| EDIT: Downvoted for pointing out smearing/bullying and dropping
| factual information. @dang - is this what HN is about? This has
| got to change.
| jgeerts wrote:
| It's hard to listen to recently, he's suggesting working out
| and eating vitamins instead of a vaccine. He still has an
| influence on people and he's spreading misinformation.
|
| Rogan is against wearing masks but demands all of his guests to
| be tested for COVID-19 before going on his show which is kind
| of contradictory.
| Fomite wrote:
| It also coincided with me canceling my Spotify account.
| sakopov wrote:
| Yeah, to be fair, that never happened. What did happen is him
| saying that if you're older you should stay home and if you're
| younger you should be alright with masks, which at the time was
| the same message that you'd hear in the media.
| TaupeRanger wrote:
| To be fair, you're just blatantly ignoring huge swaths of his
| anti-vax diatribes.
|
| He recently pointed to a 5 year old paper to suggest that
| vaccinations are bad because they allow more virulent strains
| to come about.
|
| He previously suggested that if you're "young" you don't need
| to be vaccinated, which of course his conspiratorial audience
| ate up and absolutely adored, ignoring any evidence or
| argument to the contrary.
| sleavey wrote:
| > He recently pointed to a 5 year old paper to suggest that
| vaccinations are bad because they allow more virulent
| strains to come about.
|
| Papers from the 1900s are still our best description of
| some physical phenomena. A paper's age, taken on its own,
| has nothing to do with truth or untruth.
| complianceowl wrote:
| All of us are right and wrong to varying degrees. I don't think
| Joe Rogan cares much for people that stop listening because he
| doesn't reinforce their politics. He never has.
|
| He's also spoken about the whole point of him having FU money
| is that he is able to say whatever he wants and not care about
| the blowback.
|
| I'm not anti-vax, but ultimately, my body, my choice. People
| who are risk averse are free to self-quarantine for any
| duration they please. Us, the unvaccinated, are happy to live
| freely and face any associated risks - just like people who
| decide to ride motorcycles, play combat sports, or eat
| homegrown food.
| krastanov wrote:
| There are plenty of situations in which we as a society have
| decided that freedoms are curbed to protect the masses. Drunk
| driving laws for instance. If you are putting people around
| you at risk, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to require
| you to stay home, not all the other people who have taken the
| easy trivial precautions (vaccines and masks) necessary to
| protect those around them.
| swader999 wrote:
| Covid vaccinations have only been proven to protect the
| vaccinated from severe outcomes. They don't prevent
| infection or re-transmission. There's no valid claim to
| pushing this on those that don't want them.
| krastanov wrote:
| Of course I agree that those who do not want vaccines
| should not be forced. But they also should not get to
| ruin everything for the rest of us. The r coefficient for
| vaccinated people is drastically lower leading to
| protecting those that can not get vaccinated (whom, I
| guess, unvaccinated people do not mind screwing over).
| And vaccinated people are not taking away ICU beds from
| people suffering from non-prevetable diseases.
| swader999 wrote:
| By your logic we should penalize obese people. It's more
| of a factor in icu admission stats than vax status.
| krastanov wrote:
| This is nonsense. The causal feature of the people
| saturating ICU capacities is that they are unvaccinated,
| not obese. It also matters that getting vaccinated is a
| cheap safe triviality, while getting into a healthy BMI
| range is an expensive long process (but I would agree
| that it should be encouraged).
| bwship wrote:
| Why is eating healthy and exercising expensive?
| krastanov wrote:
| Google "food deserts". Some people have 3 jobs and
| depression: not much time for going to the gym and eating
| healthy.
|
| And do not be silly: healthy food is way more expensive
| per callory.
| thegrimmest wrote:
| It's the calories that count for obesity, not the
| "healthiness". It's perfectly possible to maintain a
| healthy body weight eating chips and drinking soda. Time
| isn't a factor here, personal responsibility is.
| krastanov wrote:
| Yes, I am on the same page that all you need is a bit of
| discipline (and some baseline amount of crucial nutrients
| not present in cheap calory sources). But we all have
| about the same "discipline reserve", and some have harder
| life circumstances that expend that reserve on more
| urgent things than lunch. And this snowballs after it
| happens once. But to be fair, I do not really know what
| is the percentage of "well-off cushy fat people without a
| modicum of health discipline" vs "money-poor and time-
| poor stressed depressed fat people". I do suspect the
| latter group is bigger, and just yapping about "personal
| responsibility" kinda misses the point in that case.
| lamontcg wrote:
| They both reduce infections and reduce transmission.
|
| The VE is reduced with delta, but its still nonzero (most
| of the studies of what it really is are still incredibly
| poor though, but nothing has show it to be below 50% VE
| against infection).
|
| The initial comparable viral load studies are also all
| bad. All they did was compare Ct of RNA loads. We now
| know that there is less infectious virus in vaccinated
| individuals, and that Ct values themselves decline
| faster, which indicates they're producing more viral
| debris -- we expect studies of transmission to show that
| they transmit less. Older studies from earlier this year
| against Alpha found that 80% of vaccinated breakthrough
| infections produced zero transmitted secondary infections
| with the other 20% only infecting 1-3 other people.
|
| That is sufficient enough impact on infection and
| transmission to end the pandemic if everyone was
| vaccinated.
|
| Unfortunately, everyone, including many scientists are
| panicking in the face of uncertainty over the delta
| variant and assuming the absolute worst and spreading
| worst-case messages which are portraying vaccines as not
| being worthwhile, when they're still effective enough.
| alpaca128 wrote:
| > Us, the unvaccinated, are happy to live freely and face any
| associated risks
|
| So I assume you agree to not come running to the hospital
| when you get infected, taking away beds for other patients
| who shouldn't have to suffer because of your ignorance?
| arcticfox wrote:
| > Us, the unvaccinated, are happy to live freely and face any
| associated risks - just like people who decide to ride
| motorcycles, play combat sports, or eat homegrown food.
|
| I think you've got the wrong analogies going there. You, the
| unvaccinated, are principally putting yourselves at risk but
| you are _also_ , and more importantly, putting others at
| increased risk of transmission from yourself.
|
| Adjusting your content for accuracy: you, the unvaccinated,
| are not allowed by society to do anything you want. Just like
| you cannot drive drunk, shoot firearms inside city limits,
| urinate on the street, sell poop sandwiches as a food
| product, etc.
| gjs278 wrote:
| wrong. vaccinated people carry the same viral load as
| unvaccinated. that's why vaccinated have to wear masks.
| edmundsauto wrote:
| I think that's OK, as long as you accept the consequence of
| being outcast from society - ie not allowed to interact or go
| into a public place where you are a threat. "Not making other
| people sick during a pandemic" is a pretty reasonable
| prerequisite for social interaction.
| swayvil wrote:
| The downvote button is a tool for crowdsourcing the (very
| large) task of censorship.
|
| Agree?
| engineer_22 wrote:
| ->ride motorcycles, combat sports, or eat homegrown food.
|
| What an interesting choice of examples.... Can't help but
| thinking one of these things is not like the others.
| pertymcpert wrote:
| Why aren't you vaccinated?
| likeclockwork wrote:
| Because he's anti-vax. This is the future where everyone
| says they're not aligned with whatever idea then does
| everything they can to promote and propagate that idea.
| They'll even deny that the idea exists while spreading it
| as far as they can.
| yodsanklai wrote:
| I think he's generally a good interviewer, and I like that he
| invites people from all sides of the spectrum, if anything, it
| helps me challenging my own ideas. Also, as a non-american, I
| feel this is entertaining and give me a glimpse of American
| culture.
|
| That being said, I've lost interested mostly because his guests
| have been less interesting (lately, mostly his comedian/fighter
| friends).
|
| BTW, anyone has good podcasts in the same vein to recommend?
| upearly3 wrote:
| You might check out Koncrete although there's not as much
| content.
| S_A_P wrote:
| He's always been up and down that road. I don't agree with Joe
| on a lot of things but I don't know that is his goal. If there
| is one thing that I think Joe does reasonably well- its to have
| you consider your stance and reasons for feeling that way. I
| think it's healthy to reflect on why you take stances on things
| like politics, culture and religion. Joe admits that he is "a
| cage fighting commentator" and while I think he self labels
| that way to sometimes get away with fringe viewpoints I do
| think he genuinely is looking for the best ideas. He's
| definitely not infallible and he gets on my nerves to the point
| I stop listening for periods of time I do think that on balance
| his hearts in the right place and he is much less apt to
| blindly follow political doctrine a'la Fox News or CNBC.
| paulcole wrote:
| > Joe admits that he is "a cage fighting commentator" and
| while I think he self labels that way to sometimes get away
| with fringe viewpoints
|
| This is the same way John Stewart and Stephen Colbert hid
| behind, "I'm just a comedian." It's a great strategy if you
| can pull it off.
| aeturnum wrote:
| I actually think Rogan's approach is exactly the opposite
| of Stewart and Colbert (S&C). S&C would critique news
| organizations for failing to provide counterpoints. They
| would also earnestly advocate for their own views without
| feeling the need to provide counterpoints. Their
| justification was that they were entertainment - they
| believed what they were saying and didn't feel like they
| needed to properly inform on every element.
|
| Rogan feels like he wants it both ways. He wants to pick
| the people for his show and get credit when he picks well,
| but if people dislike one of his picks he would suddenly
| like to be seen as 'mixing it up' or a "cage fight
| commentator." He won't really own a view (or the idea of
| wanting to expose people to particular thinkers), but he
| would rather bring people on in a way where he's seen as
| minimally responsible for the uncomfortable content he
| produces.
| amznthrwaway wrote:
| Joe holds and promotes many extreme beliefs but wants
| plausible deniability.
|
| The format he uses lets him do this, empowering
| everything from Ivermectin promoters to white
| nationalists, while allowing him to feign that he's not
| doing that
| tinco wrote:
| You can pull it off if you've got integrity. John Stewart
| surely has plenty of integrity in my eyes. Joe's definitely
| also going for integrity, but maybe he's also liable to be
| pulled into the views of his guests. He certainly keeps an
| open mind, but if you surround yourself with a certain kind
| of people at some point you'll develop a bias no matter how
| open you're trying to be.
|
| What's scarier are the persons who for the law are
| considered entertainment, but conduct themselves on Fox as
| if they're real journalists, and lie and deceive with
| impunity. If Joe Rogan could disrupt the right media with
| that, the same way John and maybe Stephen did on the left
| side, the world would be a better place for sure.
| nradov wrote:
| There is no real legal distinction between entertainers
| and journalists. The separation of news and editorial
| content is purely a matter of ethics and not law.
| Journalists don't have any special statutory privileges.
| macintux wrote:
| > Journalists don't have any special statutory
| privileges.
|
| I'd say a special mention in the first amendment is
| notable.
| nradov wrote:
| Nope. US courts have consistently held that the first
| amendment applies equally to everyone regardless of
| occupation. There is no special legal test to determine
| if someone is a member of the press. There are centuries
| of case law on this issue.
| macintux wrote:
| Journalists have (some) protection against being forced
| to testify about sources. I guess it becomes a
| philosophical question at that point whether being a
| journalist is an occupation or an action.
| nradov wrote:
| Wrong again. At the federal level, journalists have no
| such protection.
|
| https://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/journalists_pri
| vil...
| macintux wrote:
| That article says 30 states have such laws, however, and
| another source indicated 49 states (plus DC).
| suzzer99 wrote:
| For a long time he thought the moon landing was fake. That's
| not a position you arrive at with reasoned science and
| understanding how the world works. He's stated he thinks
| Bigfoot could be real. He does the same thing on a myriad of
| other topics. He presents some random quack as just as valid
| as real science.
|
| If he was just some random dude none of this would matter.
| But with 11 million followers, sometimes this "my youtube
| research is just as valid as your scientific research"
| attitude can do real harm, as it did with vaccines.
| manigandham wrote:
| He's quite literally the "average Joe" (at least when he
| started). The reason he no longer thinks the moon landing
| is fake is because of reasoned science and understanding
| which he learned through the course of the show by talking
| to guests like Neil deGrasse Tyson.
| likeclockwork wrote:
| If you invite me for dinner at your house and I spend 4
| hours forcing you to convince me the Earth is round, even
| if I emerge with changed views, are we really going to be
| good friends after that?
| manigandham wrote:
| That's up to you whether you can be friends with people
| who change your mind. I don't see why that's so hard but
| Rogan's changed opinion should be seen as a success story
| about learning.
| bwship wrote:
| What does understanding about how the world works have to
| do with the validity of a moon landing?
| toofy wrote:
| > I do think he genuinely is looking for the best ideas.
|
| I lean more towards he's looking for affirmation to be
| contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian.
|
| If he was looking for the best ideas, he would of had a
| completely different set of guests.
| S_A_P wrote:
| I suppose that is possible, but I dont really find him
| overly contrarian and a lot of his views are relatively
| centrist to slight libertarian. I will say I think he looks
| for folks that he jives with more than most qualified for
| the subject. But really Im not here to defend Joe and
| honestly have not found a lot of compelling guests of late
| on his show. I just dont think he is as bad as he is
| sometimes made out to be.
| amznthrwaway wrote:
| I think his defenders are mostly people like you; people
| who are fundamentally dishonest assholes.
|
| They like Joe because he is also a fundamentally
| dishonest asshole.
|
| As evidence, you say you are not here to defend Joe, but
| you wrote multiple posts defending Joe. You're a
| dishonest little asshole. Just like Joe.
| rapind wrote:
| He was always into the conspiracy stuff, and it was usually
| pretty light and interesting. The tone and guests definitely
| changed around the time he moved to Austin (no knock on Austin,
| I love that place). Politics and stuff I guess.
|
| I lost interest too.
| Clubber wrote:
| I don't think that's accurate. Do you have some links or
| anything to back that up? Like actual transcripts, not some
| media interpretation.
|
| "People say, do you think it's safe to get vaccinated? I've
| said, yeah, I think for the most part it's safe to get
| vaccinated. I do. I do," Rogan said on the podcast. "But if
| you're like 21 years old, and you say to me, should I get
| vaccinated? I'll go no. Are you healthy? Are you a healthy
| person?"
|
| "If you're a healthy person, and you're exercising all the
| time, and you're young, and you're eating well," Rogan
| continued, "like, I don't think you need to worry about this."
|
| If this is what you are referring to, is that really anti-vax?
| kelnos wrote:
| I don't know anything about what Rogan has said about
| vaccinations (I'm not the parent you're replying to), but I
| still think this is a very disappointing, dangerously
| misinformed take on his part. He's flat-out wrong; if you're
| 21, generally healthy, exercising, etc., you absolutely
| should get the vaccine. Also note that at first glance what
| he says _sounds_ reasonable. He 's not the frothing-at-the-
| mouth anti-vaxxer spouting garbage about vaccines containing
| tracking chips, or part of the idiot crowd decrying
| vaccination as somehow an affront to their liberty. He's
| saying something reasoned, in a presumably calm manner, and
| that will push even reasonable people believe it, even though
| he is completely wrong.
|
| These takes encourage people to only think about themselves.
| Even if a young, generally healthy (unvaccinated) person is
| unlikely to get sick (or worse), they could still very easily
| end up an asymptomatic carrier, and give it to someone who
| isn't in such great shape. Beyond that, an unvaccinated host
| is also a great place for the virus to mutate and spread,
| prolonging the pandemic for everyone.
|
| _Everyone_ who is eligible and medically able needs to get
| vaccinated. I 'm getting super tired of all this garbage; the
| US has had the vaccine supply and capability to be out of the
| pandemic by now, but the unvaccinated are screwing over the
| rest of us who are doing the right thing.
| upearly3 wrote:
| Part 1: >I don't know anything about what Rogan has said
| about vaccinations.
|
| Part 2: > I still think this is a very disappointing,
| dangerously misinformed take on his part
|
| lol. "I don't know what he said, but I disagree with it"
| Clubber wrote:
| In all fairness, I quoted a transcript that I assumed he
| was responding to.
| clipradiowallet wrote:
| > Everyone who is eligible and medically able needs to get
| vaccinated. I'm getting super tired of all this garbage;
| the US has had the vaccine supply and capability to be out
| of the pandemic by now
|
| That's a rather polarized position... what facts or
| experienced led you to this conclusion you stated?
| Specifically _" the unvaccinated are screwing over the rest
| of us who are doing the right thing"_.
| andrewzah wrote:
| "Specifically "the unvaccinated are screwing over the
| rest of us who are doing the right thing"."
|
| They're disproportionately taking up resources in
| hospitals for example, which do not have unlimited
| resources. We could be having a much better response
| right now [here in the U.S.] with less load on hospitals,
| but we're not, because of selfish and/or gullible people.
|
| They're also making the pandemic & related economic
| measures last longer than necessary. I can't wait for the
| next shutdown(s) as more variants evolve then spread and
| hospitals become even more inundated. Meanwhile I look at
| places like South Korea which have had life continue
| relatively normal because people actually wear masks
| there instead of politicizing them.
| kaibee wrote:
| > That's a rather polarized position... what facts or
| experienced led you to this conclusion you stated?
| Specifically "the unvaccinated are screwing over the rest
| of us who are doing the right thing".
|
| The fact that the unvaccinated are taking up all of the
| hospital beds in certain areas of the country..?
| [deleted]
| sleavey wrote:
| > the unvaccinated are screwing over the rest of us who are
| doing the right thing.
|
| I'm curious as to what evidence you base that assertion on.
| Respectfully, can you explain your position there?
| timr wrote:
| > He's flat-out wrong; if you're 21, generally healthy,
| exercising, etc., you absolutely should get the vaccine.
|
| While I generally agree with you, this is an _opinion_ ,
| not an unquestionable fact. Especially as we're seeing
| elevated risk of myocarditis in young men, there's
| absolutely a legitimate debate here.
|
| I don't necessarily think Rogan is the one advancing that
| debate, but presenting opinions as facts is not helping
| anyone.
| [deleted]
| crazygringo wrote:
| Of course that's anti-vax.
|
| The main purpose of getting the vaccine isn't just to protect
| _yourself_ -- it 's to reduce the chances of you transmitting
| it to _others_. It 's about herd immunity, not personal
| immunity. Whether you're young and healthy is irrelevant.
| ostenning wrote:
| Herd immunity is not possible with our current vaccines[1],
| which means that coronavirus will continue to propagate
| through society whether you decide to get vaccinated or
| not.
|
| You can make the argument that getting vaccinated reduces
| the risk of you being hospitalized, which keeps a bed and a
| nurse available for someone else. Thats a much more valid
| argument to make.
|
| [1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00728-2
|
| Edit: for those downvoting me, I've added a reference for
| more information
| TigeriusKirk wrote:
| >Herd immunity is not possible with our current vaccines,
| which means that coronavirus will continue to propagate
| through society
|
| This is my understanding as well, which was why I decided
| to get vaccinated. If avoiding infection is impossible in
| the long run, I should help my immune system prepare for
| it.
|
| I wonder how differently things would be going if the
| campaign was "Covid is here to stay. You _will_ get it.
| Get vaccinated. "
|
| Maybe it would help, maybe not.
| Clubber wrote:
| >I wonder how differently things would be going if the
| campaign was "Covid is here to stay. You will get it. Get
| vaccinated."
|
| I actually heard someone say that today, but I don't
| remember where. Maybe Breaking Points, but not sure.
|
| I was certainly rattled when I saw amateur video of
| hospital workers stacking bodies in a freezer truck in
| NYC. They should do more like that. As morbid as it is,
| it gets the point across.
|
| https://nypost.com/2020/03/30/disturbing-footage-shows-
| dead-...
|
| This wasn't the one I saw but you get the idea.
| rkk3 wrote:
| > The main purpose of getting the vaccine isn't just to
| protect yourself -- it's to reduce the chances of you
| transmitting it to others. It's about herd immunity, not
| personal immunity.
|
| Not about personal immunity? Why did we roll it out by age
| group then?
| ta2987 wrote:
| Yes.
| JxLS-cpgbe0 wrote:
| > should I get vaccinated? I'll go no.
|
| Yes that's anti-vax. We get vaccinated not just to protect
| ourselves from death, but also to protect those around us by
| reducing the transmission of disease.
| rkk3 wrote:
| Acknowledging that vaccines have some risk & at a certain
| risk reward trade-off you would not take the vaccine is not
| anti-vax.
| fatcoward wrote:
| WHY AREN'T THOSE PEOPLE VACCINATED TOO YOU STUPID FUCK?
| I_cape_runts wrote:
| False. The vaccinated can and do transmit the disease.
| Vaccination only protects you. It doesn't protect others
| around you.
| JxLS-cpgbe0 wrote:
| It reduces the chance of transmission. That's how it
| protects others...
|
| > Vaccination only protects you
|
| False. Vaccinated people can still get sick, and
| vaccination reduces the spread of disease, protecting
| people that aren't you.
|
| http://cdc.org/
| makomk wrote:
| Except that all the existing evidence suggests your
| argument is backwards. Whilst Covid-19 vaccination
| doesn't provide full protection for either the vaccinated
| or those around them, it seems to be much more effective
| at protecting the person being vaccinated against severe
| symptoms, hospitalization and death than it does at
| stopping them catching and spreading the virus to others.
| As far as I can tell, literally the _only_ reason
| vaccination is primarily framed as a way of protecting
| others is because that framing fits better into left-wing
| politics; it has nothing to do with the actual evidence.
| kelnos wrote:
| It's more nuanced than that. Prior to the delta variant,
| there was strong evidence that the vaccines also
| prevented you from being a carrier of the virus in most
| cases.
|
| The calculus with delta is different, as it does seem
| that vaccinated people can spread delta. But the severity
| of that spread, as well as the amount of time a
| vaccinated person can spread it, is certainly lower than
| that of an unvaccinated person.
| reanimus wrote:
| Yeah, it is! People thinking they don't need the vaccine are
| contracting COVID and acting like human petri dishes for new
| variants to arise from. It's also ignoring the reality of
| COVID aftereffects (like parosmia) that affect young people
| who recover too.
| clipradiowallet wrote:
| How do you come to that conclusion? Specifically your
| conflusion that Joe Rogan is "anti-vax" from your sample of
| him replying "I'll go no". If that's all it takes for you
| to label someone, is someone saying "I'll go no" to a
| homosexual encounter also anti-gay? Is someone who doesn't
| agree with their governments policy anti-government? Might
| want to relax a bit...I hear opinions are like certain body
| parts. We've all got them, including Joe Rogan, and getting
| up in arms about it doesn't help you or anyone else.
| [deleted]
| beezischillin wrote:
| I stopped watching purely due to the Spotify deal. I was willing
| to give it a try until I saw that they were memoryholing
| episodes. I might be in the minority here but it felt like a
| betrayal. If he wanted more money he could've invested in his own
| platform like many others and people would've followed. There's
| plenty of other content in the sea.
| mr_sturd wrote:
| Some old episodes can be found at
| https://archive.org/details/jre-001-837
| bostonsre wrote:
| memoryholing episodes == ?
| [deleted]
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Spotify didn't bring over the old episodes with people like
| Alex Jones, Gavin McInnes, and Milo Yiannopoulos.
|
| > "There were a few episodes they didn't want on their
| platform," Rogan said, per DMN. "And I was like, 'OK, I don't
| care.'" https://www.thewrap.com/spotify-deletes-joe-rogan-
| podcast-ep...
| duxup wrote:
| Kinda curious, do fans .. .care about that?
|
| I guess some do but I don't think I ever listen to past
| podcasts that I've already listened to...
| nradov wrote:
| I'm not particularly a "fan", but I do enjoy listening to
| some JRE episodes when he has interesting guests like
| Andrew Huberman. I don't care about losing access to old
| podcasts any more than I care about Netflix pulling
| certain movies. That's just the reality of all streaming
| services. Content gets removed all the time for all sorts
| of reasons. If you want to maintain access to something
| then you'll have to make a local copy on hardware you
| own.
| pelasaco wrote:
| I for example like to hear everything from the beginning
| of the pandemics.. it is quite interesting to see now how
| wrong/right the experts were.
| literallyaduck wrote:
| They don't burn books, they just remove them. Those
| episodes happened, and removing them is a form of
| gaslighting. If they find the content objectionable then
| putting a disclaimer, if it is objectionable enough then
| removing the entire series from the platform could be an
| option, but it is lost history. In this case the artist
| doesn't care, and probably is happy to sweep those
| episodes under the rug. It is like how Disney wishes they
| hadn't made "Song of the South".
| duxup wrote:
| Aren't they still available on YouTube / elsewhere?
| bostonsre wrote:
| All of the old ones are on youtube anyways, so I would
| guess not. e.g. an alex jones one:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdVso9FSkmE
| dylan604 wrote:
| If you're recommending someone should listen to a
| previous episode you might be interested that it is
| avaialable or not.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Kinda curious, do fans .. .care about that?
|
| Beyond bad faith concern trolling, I suspect not.
| kristjank wrote:
| Shame. Not to condone these people, but since getting along
| with everyone was Joe Rogan's thing, I think they should've
| embraced it. But Joe was most likely not glad to preserve
| that part of his career either, otherwise I assume he would
| protest.
| kbenson wrote:
| $100 million is a lot of incentive to not protest. The
| line between actually important and kinda important gets
| really well defined when you throw that much money on the
| table.
| chaoticmass wrote:
| Removing certain old episodes from the catalogue (as if they
| never existed, so they become forgotten)
| correct_horse wrote:
| Memory hole is from 1984. It is where they put papers to be
| incinerated and forgotten. Spotify removed a few Joe Rogan
| episodes IIRC.
| [deleted]
| TakerofVita wrote:
| I'm guessing this:
|
| > A memory hole is any mechanism for the deliberate
| alteration or disappearance of inconvenient or embarrassing
| documents, photographs, transcripts or other records, such as
| from a website or other archive, particularly as part of an
| attempt to give the impression that something never happened.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole
| blendergeek wrote:
| I believe GP is refering to the fact that Spotify has removed
| episodes from Joe Rogan's back catalog that have been deemed
| controversial [0].
|
| [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-rogan-experience-
| podcast...
| megablast wrote:
| > memoryholing
|
| Who talks like this??
| bb123 wrote:
| What does memoryholing mean?
| indy wrote:
| Some episodes are no longer available, as if Spotify wants
| everyone to forget that they even exist. Episodes featuring
| Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones etc. In other words, guests
| that offend the progressive attitudes of Silicon Valley
| [deleted]
| jimt1234 wrote:
| Rejecting people that promote the "Sandy Hook was fake!"
| conspiracy theory and even harassing the parents of
| murdered children isn't a way to avoid offending the
| "progressive attitudes of Silicon Valley". It's just common
| decency. ... Can we at least set the bar at that level --
| that we _don't_ harass the parents of murdered children for
| clicks?
| secondcoming wrote:
| Rogan called Jones out on that in one episode.
| ErikVandeWater wrote:
| Interviewing influential figures is important.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Interviewing libelous crackpots _gives_ them influence.
| Without interviews, they 're seldom influential.
| ErikVandeWater wrote:
| I'm pretty sure Alex Jones has a big platform for
| himself.
| russdpale wrote:
| Yeh LOL sandy hook denial is for progressive silicon Valley
| types who aren't progressive. Maybe Spotify doesn't want to
| be the 'dive bar' of web platforms.
|
| If you aren't offended by Alex Jones you got deeper issues,
| or perhaps are just ignorant to his white nationalist
| messaging.
| [deleted]
| Milolol wrote:
| Milo Yiannopoulos is a self-proclaimed white supremacist,
| that offends more than "the progressive attitudes of
| Silicon Valley," it offends everyone that's not a white
| supremacist.
|
| Alex Jones testified to being a performance artist and
| hosts a talk show purely to hawk merchandise. Does that
| really fit the mold of a thought-provoking podcast like
| Rogan's?
| LegitShady wrote:
| >Milo Yiannopoulos is a self-proclaimed white supremacist
|
| Pretty sure he said that while married to a black dude,
| so unless you can come up with something specific I think
| its comedy/trolling.
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| He's not white supremacists. He openly says he prefers
| black men and has on several podcasts. He's just not a
| typical gay man so he gets villified.
| [deleted]
| Covzire wrote:
| What happened? Liberalism used to have a solid footing on
| the essentials of the constitution. If your enemies or
| people you don't like don't have rights, you don't
| either. The ACLU used to understand this probably better
| than most organizations and today, like much of CA and
| NY, they're lost.
| I_cape_runts wrote:
| I'm hesitant to delete something from public consumption
| just because it's offensive or not liked.
| meowface wrote:
| >Milo Yiannopoulos is a self-proclaimed white supremacist
|
| I think Milo is a scumbag, personally, but where did he
| self-proclaim that he's a white supremacist?
|
| >Alex Jones testified to being a performance artist
|
| No, he didn't. His lawyer attempted to argue that he was
| during a lawsuit, as a defense against full culpability
| for his actions. Lawyers (understandably) try to pull out
| everything they can to help their client. There's no
| evidence Jones himself has ever said this or thinks this.
|
| Although most of his non-watchers seem to think he's just
| a con artist, after watching a cumulative dozens of hours
| of him on camera over the years, I'm convinced it's not
| an act and that he genuinely believes pretty much
| everything he's saying (except for cases where he's
| attempting to do a comedy bit). Unfortunately, a lot of
| people in the US believe all of the things he believes -
| and not necessarily because they're hearing it from him.
| They all drink from the same watering holes. In my
| opinion, this is why it's actually a lot more frightening
| than con artistry or performance art.
| foldr wrote:
| These people are too smart to literally say "yes I am
| [the bad thing]", but Milo is not exactly subtle about
| where his sympathies lie: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/ar
| ticle/josephbernstein/heres-h...
| cxf12 wrote:
| To be fair, Milo was pretty thought provoking.
| kelnos wrote:
| I would be thrilled if both of those people simply ceased
| to exist, but I think it's dishonest to delete and
| "forget" old episodes of a show because you later decide
| that the guests on those episodes were terrible people.
|
| (I don't consider it material that presumably Spotify
| required deleting them as part of the deal. Rogan agreed
| to those terms, so clearly the money was more important
| to him.)
| effingwewt wrote:
| Right, so don't listen to those episodes. I, on the other
| hand, like hearing both sides so I can make an informed
| decision on _why_ I disagree with whomever.
|
| 'So and so is bad, I heard it from X' has never been good
| for any human society.
|
| Pretending the episodes don't exist is rewriting history.
|
| 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to
| repeat it.'
|
| Personal point- if I saw Alex Jones personally I would
| not want to be him. He has, for his own enrichment,
| destroyed personal relationships, caused me endless
| arguments with friends/family and is a walking detrament
| to society. I hate with a passion the garbage he spews to
| sell some garbage fake pills. But I still believe he has
| a right to be heard.
|
| We need to educate people not shelter them.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| It wasn't just those two people. https://www.reddit.com/r
| /JoeRogan/comments/ikf9at/full_list_...
|
| Also how do you know that either of those people are what
| others have told you they are? If you're unable to listen
| to them because they've been depersoned everywhere, you
| have no way of knowing if they're truly as represented or
| have been character assassinated. I'm not trying to
| convince you that either of them aren't who you think
| they are (from what I've seen, you're not far off) but
| rather have you see that you could be wrong about them
| (or others in the future) if you are not allowed to hear
| them first hand and only get views of them filtered
| through others.
| pugets wrote:
| On episode #1682 he talks about both figures. He was
| saying he does feel a responsibility to vet his guests so
| that he doesn't just have crazies using his platform to
| spew vile, but ultimately that neither figure harms
| anyone just by being a guest on a podcast. He talked
| about how even if you hate Alex or Milo, you can still
| gain something from listening to them speak. Maybe you
| can figure out why you hate them, or maybe listening to
| them directly will make you understand them in a
| different light.
|
| Maybe this is a 1990s George Carlin thing to say, but so
| what if Milo offends people? Should we only be allowed to
| hear things that don't offend us?
| blackshaw wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole
| pcstl wrote:
| Deleting something produced in the past such that it cannot
| be found anymore.
| kristjank wrote:
| Wiping and unacknowledging something's past existence. Think
| unpersons in 1984.
| blahblahblogger wrote:
| I didn't like them banning episodes too. There were internal
| movements from Spotify employees (liberal Silicon Valley
| workers) who wanted episodes completely censored and removed.
| Joe talked about it a few times and I read some articles.
|
| The irony is that by moving to these liberal employees'
| platform, he's losing influence :)
|
| By creating a crappy podcast platform they've ensured they get
| what they want and he ends up diminished.
| arodgers_la wrote:
| Comedian Bill Burr said it best: "I'm not gonna sit here with no
| medical degree, listening to you with no medical degree, with an
| American flag behind you smoking a cigar acting like we know
| what's up better than the CDC." [0]
|
| That quote is Joe Rogan's shtick in a nutshell.
|
| [0] https://youtube.com/watch?v=tSKVXl-WnrA&t=5m20s
| atlgator wrote:
| The shtick is not limited to covid matters either. Most of his
| non-MMA takes start with him not saying he's an expert followed
| by a very naive and unnuanced summation of a problem. Lex
| Fridman does the same thing for non-robotics/AI issues.
| supperburg wrote:
| Says people who don't watch joe rogan. Joe rogan has two kinds
| of guests: experts/scientists and show biz people. The former
| are why I watch the podcast. And I think it's important because
| it gives a platform to people are being ignored by the
| mainstream. Take for example Paul Saladino. Watch that podcast
| and tell me it's pseudo science. You can't because he's
| meticulously citing a paper and bringing up that paper to the
| screen practically every five minutes. And he's an MD. And he's
| been proven right by CAC score. And he's planning an angiogram
| which if it comes out clean will be incontrovertible... he was
| right. It annoys me that people want to shut down joe rogan for
| harmless speculation he makes. If you think of Galileo and his
| conflict with the church, he's very much like a joe rogan
| guest. Has a controversial but correct scientific insight,
| clashes with authority and the old dogma. There's definitely
| been a handful of people like that. The MAPS guy comes to mind.
| His vindication was massive and joe rogans contribution to that
| was probably not insignificant.
| landonxjames wrote:
| I came across a very thorough analysis of the Paul Saladino
| episode [0] the other day when I was researching him after a
| friend recommended his book. Seemed like he was cherry
| picking evidence pretty hard and that the majority of the
| evidence doesn't agree with his stance at all
|
| [0] https://www.biolayne.com/articles/research/paul-saladino-
| on-...
| supperburg wrote:
| I will read the full thing later but I find it hard to
| believe when you see this
|
| "Moreover, the current western lifestyle is characterized
| by high fat intake"
|
| Which is stated as fact when it's not even true. Fat has
| been stripped out of everything. Even milk has the fat
| taken out of it. Look anywhere and you will see "fat free"
|
| And while I agree that a lot of what saladino says doesn't
| have enough evidence to be totally sure, what everyone
| always ignores is when saladino points out that there isn't
| enough evidence to be sure of the lipid hypothesis of heart
| disease. There has never been a randomized, interventional
| study that proves anything anyone says about meat, fat,
| heart disease and health. Not one proper study. Meanwhile,
| him and other people have zero CAC on a diet that should
| have _killed_ him according to the current model. And there
| are many other people who have done this. I can't dig into
| the "debunk" right now but that's the value I take out of
| saladino
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > And while I agree that a lot of what saladino says
| doesn't have enough evidence to be totally sure, what
| everyone always ignores is when saladino points out that
| there isn't enough evidence to be sure of the lipid
| hypothesis of heart disease.
|
| This is a common, but lazy, trope trotted out by people
| like Saladino. It's the same "It's just a theory"
| argument that climate change deniers use.
|
| There is a lot of evidence showing that things like
| elevated LDL cholesterol has a cumulative (area under the
| curve) negative effect on heart health, and that
| saturated fat consumption is directionally negative for
| heart health. You'd be hard pressed to find an actual
| cardiologist or researcher who believes these things
| aren't true. So why do you choose to believe a known
| salesman with a conflict of interest in promoting his
| expensive supplements and books on the topic?
|
| You seem to be assuming a specific conclusion is true and
| cherry-picking the single person who wants to sell that
| conclusion to you. There are plenty of citations to the
| contrary, many of which are in the article linked above.
| supperburg wrote:
| These are extremely valid points. Even Shawn baker
| doesn't like the fact that Paul directly profits from
| promoting carnivore.
|
| It's funny you say there's a lot of evidence showing LDL
| is bad etc, ok then show me the randomized interventional
| study regarding animal fat. Regarding carnivore. You
| can't and so whenever you say "there's lots of evidence"
| you also have to say "but it's still unproven." And yes,
| there is a difference between me and people who deny
| gravity or global warming because in my case, the study
| is absolutely trivial to perform! But it never happens
| because the academic community refuses to put people in
| (hypothetical!) danger by feeding them animal fat. It
| would be immoral and most importantly very unfashionable
| to perform a study like that.
|
| Here's the rub: nobody I know or have seen has
| experienced a decline in their health from carnivore.
| There's no hard evidence that it's bad for you. That guy
| from the grateful dead did it for 40 years and never had
| a heart problem. I want a randomized controlled and
| interventional study that simply shows us what difference
| it makes to be carnivore rather than something else. I
| will happily shut up forever if we did that and I was
| wrong.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > Here's the rub: nobody I know or have seen has
| experienced a decline in their health from carnivore.
| There's no hard evidence that it's bad for you.
|
| Carnivore Diet wasn't really a thing until about 2018,
| aside from scattered anecdotes ( https://trends.google.co
| m/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=c... )
|
| Heart disease develops over decades.
|
| It's very disingenuous to declare that "there's no hard
| evidence that it's bad for you" when the vast majority of
| experimenters have barely been doing this for about 3-4%
| of their expected lifespan.
| dota_fanatic wrote:
| Was going to link this exact article, but you beat me to
| it. :) My biggest problem with Saladino's episode was that
| early in it became clear that he is a zealot, and almost by
| definition zealots are rarely generally "right" or "not
| pseudoscience" as GP claims in this specific case.
| Especially when their object of zealotry is an extremely
| complex field that we're only just beginning to understand.
| It's difficult to trust anything a zealot says. I surely
| don't have time to dig into all the ways in which they're
| using the "science" to support their perspective.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| Saladino isn't so much a zealot as he is a salesman. He's
| building a personal brand and business around being the
| contrarian carnivore guy. He wants you to buy his books,
| buy his supplements (which cost as much as $68 per bottle
| for trivially cheap ingredients), and sign up for his
| newsletter so he can pitch you more stuff.
|
| He may actually believe what he's pitching, but he's so
| drowning in financial conflicts of interest and personal
| brand-building that I don't think he could accept
| contradictory evidence from anyone. He only sees what he
| wants to see because that's how he makes his money and
| builds his fame.
|
| It's fascinating to see him cited by the grandparent
| comment because Saladino is a notorious quack among the
| actual nutrition communities, including keto communities.
| He presents himself as a doctor but conveniently forgets
| to mention that he's a psychiatrist. He cherry-picks
| citations from papers that he knows listeners won't
| actually read and then presents them out of context.
|
| And most of all, he sells his brand and products hard,
| which should be a huge red flag for anyone being
| delivered this uniquely contrarian information that
| defies mainstream medical science. It's fascinating that
| this person concluded he's an expert in the field simply
| because he was on the Joe Rogan podcast. I suppose that
| is the problem with the JRE podcast: Too many of the
| listeners think they're equipped to identify the real
| truth, while Joe Rogan serves up a steady diet of
| convincing quacks interleaved with actual experts.
| dntrkv wrote:
| This is the problem with misinformation nowadays.
| Everything is "backed by studies." The problem is, the same
| study can be interpreted to support two opposing views.
|
| Hell, I'm sure if this Saladino guy just completely made up
| a study and presented it as fact, the vast majority of the
| users will never bother to check if that study even exists,
| let alone verify the claims. Most listeners are just there
| to reaffirm their preexisting beliefs.
|
| Personally, I just don't trust people that push such narrow
| solutions to complex systems (nutrition in this case).
| nemothekid wrote:
| > _Says people who don't watch joe rogan. Joe rogan has two
| kinds of guests: experts /scientists and show biz people._
|
| As someone who has been listening to Joe (on and off) for ~5
| years, it's hard to believe that you haven't noticed a trend
| in the type of guests Joe has on in past year. I really feel
| it _used_ to be that Joe would have on a wide range of people
| but now it seems that he 's created an echo chamber. For
| example, at the start of the pandemic, in March, he had
| Michael Osterholm on his show - a top epidemiologist. He took
| it seriously at first, but once he was tired of lock downs,
| he has had several more "alternative" scientists to appease
| his world view and is pretty much antagonistic to anyone
| else.
|
| I was listening him talk to Rhonda Patrick this morning
| (who's been on the show multiple times) and I was completely
| flabbergasted about how incredulous he seemed to be then
| Rhonda talked about vaccines. Think about that - this is one
| of his most credentialed friends and now he's incredibly
| skeptical as he's gotten even more dogmatic in his views.
|
| And I'm sorry, diet fads are as old as America. You can pull
| up medical papers justifying almost anything when it comes to
| gastronomy. I hate this idea that has creeped further into
| the American psyche that people are pushed out of the
| mainstream because of the liberal boogeyman. You have quacks
| that are backed up by as much data as Saladino saying that
| going vegan will give you super powers. Some people are just
| wrong, and I'd be critical of the praise Joe gives a guy like
| Saladino given that Joe also has a vested interest in
| Saladino being correct as well.
| danenania wrote:
| Dogmatic... really? It's hard for me to think of a _less_
| dogmatic public figure. His views are all over the place,
| change frequently, and aren 't at all consistent with each
| other. His critics (on both right and left) generally seem
| to want him to be more dogmatic, not less; they want him to
| be consistent with _their own_ preferred dogma.
|
| To me Joe comes across as someone who's figuring it out as
| they go and doesn't have a filter. I personally find this
| refreshing compared to zealots who are certain they have
| all the right answers on very nuanced and complex topics.
|
| Edit: Ok downvoters, what is Joe Rogan's "dogma"? Honest
| question.
| nemothekid wrote:
| His views are only all over the place if you try to
| bucket him in the American "Democrat/Republican" binary
| bucket. If you listen to him for a long time he is
| surprisingly consistent a number of issues. For example,
| Joe is a huge supporter of public welfare. He grew up,
| temporarily, on food stamps and has always pushed back
| when even the most right of guests would call people on
| welfare lazy. Likewise I feel he has an incredibly poor
| track record on trans rights and can be very transphobic.
| That said, it's very difficult for people to communicate
| outside the "Democrat/Republican" playing field and
| people seem to love team sports more than discussion. Now
| that said, Joe is a human being and is welcome to his own
| beliefs, but whereas before I felt like Joe would have a
| mix of people on, his _newer_ guests tend to be people
| who reaffirm his beliefs.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > Joe rogan has two kinds of guests: experts/scientists and
| show biz people. The former are why I watch the podcast.
|
| Many of us have tried to listen to Joe Rogan for the former
| category. When I catch an interview with someone I already
| know and respect (e.g. John Carmack), it's not bad.
|
| But Rogan is also notorious for bringing on over-confident
| "experts" who present their pet theories as done deal
| research. Saladino is a perfect example of this over-
| confidence. Citing papers and having a medical degree doesn't
| automatically make someone infallible or even correct.
|
| > And he's an MD.
|
| Saladino has a medical degree, but did you know he's a
| psychiatrist? Perhaps a good degree to have for manipulating
| people, but I prefer to get my nutrition research from
| nutrition researchers, not psychiatrists who have webstores
| selling $60 supplements.
|
| Saladino profits by building his brand: He sells books. He
| sells coaching. He sells extremely overpriced supplements. He
| has a branded web page with his Joe Rogan interview as the
| background and a "Join my Tribe" link at the top.
|
| Saladino is a salesperson who is pitching you on his theories
| to sell you products and extract money from you. Joe Rogan is
| unqualified to push back on it, so he gives these people a
| huge audience with which to push their agendas.
|
| And it works! Here you are, completely convinced that
| everything he said is true and accurate, while it's trivially
| easy to find fact checkers showing how he made incorrect
| claims all through that podcast (
| https://www.biolayne.com/articles/research/paul-saladino-
| on-... ).
|
| That is the problem with Joe Rogan's podcast.
| supperburg wrote:
| Yes, I knew he specializes in psychiatry. He went to the
| same medical school and took the same classes as any other
| kind of doctor.
| vernie wrote:
| And we can't forget about Rogan's thought-provoking segment
| with the DN guy.
| techrat wrote:
| You forgot the third kind of guest he has...
|
| White supremacists and Crypto Fascists.
|
| He just lets them talk unchallenged.
| 99_00 wrote:
| >acting like we know what's up better than the CDC
|
| Bill Burr is a comedian. He's telling a joke. A joke something
| someone says to cause amusement and and laughter.
|
| Everyone should question and seek information on issues they
| care about.
| paulpauper wrote:
| the health experts a year ago said vaccines would make this go
| away, and before that they predicted that masks and social
| distancing would flatten the curve. With the exception of a few
| countries, none of that happened. At this ponit, I don't think
| anyone knows anything.
|
| due to rampant downvoting, I will respond to individual replies
| here:
|
| "This worked perfectly basically anywhere people actually
| complied. "
|
| Italy had among the strictest lockdowns in April but saw a huge
| resurgence at the end of2020
|
| " Largely it did happen, we just don't see the counterfactual.
| It could have been a lot worse. "
|
| That is moving the goalposts. The claim by the experts was that
| the vaccines were 95% effective at stopping the spread. It
| seemd that way until a few months ago when Deltacame along.
| eloff wrote:
| Vaccines, masks, and restrictions did all work to "flatten
| the curve". Your assertion that they did not is a very
| minority opinion and the onus is on you to back that up with
| data.
|
| It should be fully intuitive that anything that reduces the
| r0 value for spreading the disease flattens the curve
| compared to what it could have been. That somehow it is not
| obvious to you suggests your sense making apparatus has been
| hijacked by something. Take a good hard look at yourself.
|
| To the downvoters, you are retarded. Sincerely.
| nate_meurer wrote:
| > _The claim by the experts was that the vaccines were 95%
| effective at stopping the spread._
|
| No, vaccines are not expected to prevent infection or
| "spread", and almost none do. For example, flu vaccines don't
| keep you from from getting infected, and the virus still
| spreads successfully even when vaccination rates are high.
| What the flu shot does is (hopefully) cause you to have less
| severe symptoms.
|
| Vaccines are designed and tested to prevent disease _in
| spite_ of infection. This is a universally understood
| principle in the field of immunology, regardless of the CDC
| 's confusing messaging.
|
| The current evidence indicates that the vaccines are doing a
| good job of preventing hospitalizations due to covid.
| read_if_gay_ wrote:
| If that is such an universally understood principle then a
| lot of people are badly misinformed. I can't count how
| often I hear "if everybody just took the vaccine the virus
| would be gone within _insert timespan_ " even in academic
| circles.
| nate_meurer wrote:
| > _if everybody just took the vaccine the virus would be
| gone within insert timespan_
|
| No, the expectation is that a successful vaccination
| campaign will end the pandemic, by making the burden on
| healthcare systems manageable. Nobody serious thinks we
| can eradicate the virus like we did with smallpox. It
| will always be with us, causing infection.
|
| This is how al vaccines work, with the exception of HPV
| and possibly measles. Vaccines are not expected to
| provide sterilizing immunity, and they don't need to as
| long as they prevent serious disease due to the
| infection.
|
| Within the field of immunology this is common knowledge,
| and I wish the CDC would message it more clearly.
| recursive wrote:
| It's not enough for vaccines to exist. People have get
| vaccinated. That has not happened (enough).
|
| How do you know the curve wasn't flattened? I don't know
| whether it was or not. It seems the only way to find out for
| sure is to compare the curve to what it would have been in an
| alternate timeline.
| kaibee wrote:
| > they predicted that masks and social distancing would
| flatten the curve.
|
| This worked perfectly basically anywhere people actually
| complied.
| goostavos wrote:
| https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/
| mavhc wrote:
| Seems like an unbiased source. I made my own chart:
| https://imgur.com/a/mI8OdpW
| knownjorbist wrote:
| This really takes the cake for misleading charts, devoid
| of context or controlling for other factors when drawing
| conclusions.
| swayvil wrote:
| The hivemind is always right. Conform or suffer.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Largely it did happen, we just don't see the counterfactual.
| It could have been a lot worse.
| [deleted]
| mikepurvis wrote:
| First, places with high vaccination rates are crushing it.
| There basically isn't a fourth wave in Waterloo Region [1],
| and we have 85% one dose, 78% two doses at present.
|
| Second, those predictions were made ahead of a year of
| mutation-- delta in particular.
|
| [1]: https://www.regionofwaterloo.ca/en/health-and-
| wellness/posit...
| victor9000 wrote:
| The problem people have with Joe Rogan, and everyone else like
| him, is that they're spreading misinformation without having an
| ounce of education in the subject at hand. People should be
| listening to the CDC, the FDA, getting vaccinated, wearing
| masks, and washing their hands. That is best solution we have
| to the problem, end of story. No amount of agreeable platitudes
| will make any difference if this disease continues to mutate
| among the unvaccinated population. Arm chair commentators are
| not more capable at understanding virology and immunology than
| the CDC, and their beliefs are completely irrelevant when it
| comes to fighting this disease.
| pandeiro wrote:
| The State is always benevolent and we should always believe
| and do everything they say. End of story.
| techrat wrote:
| False dichotomy. You're not going to enable an honest
| debate by going straight to fallacies.
| ipaddr wrote:
| The best solution is not a vaccine that works for a few
| months requiring multiple booster shots meanwhile the rest of
| the world cannot get enough for one shot. And then allowing
| the rest of the world to fly in.
|
| Putting all your faith in the CDC and choosing not to allow
| yourself to form your own opinions is an interesting
| strategy. It absolves you of any responsibility. Do you vote?
| Choosing someone to make decisions on things you are not an
| expert on would seem like a huge responsibility you wouldn't
| be qualified for. Do you leave those decisions for others?
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| Bill Burr might be right, but there are, for example, people
| who think satirical news shows are actual _credible_ news. I
| don 't think what Joe Rogan does is much above a step beyond
| that sort of entertainment.
| nmz wrote:
| Fox news has news in its name and the daily show got emmy's
| every single time, not to mention that time The colbert
| report tried getting a super pac and managed to get it.
|
| Last week tonight is quite credible.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| The Colbert Report did more to educate Americans about Super
| PACs than any legit news source:
| https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/stephen-
| colberts...
|
| Meanwhile Fox News continues to mislead Americans with active
| disinformation on a daily basis.
| [deleted]
| VelkaMorava wrote:
| During that episode I have came to conclusion that Bill Burr is
| who Joe Rogan sees as himself. Eloquent, humorous, says-
| he's-stupid-but-he-is-actually-smart, able to step back and
| look at all the stupid stuff everyone does (including himself).
|
| Except Rogan is actually this:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/8xofvi/joe_rogan_...
| OJFord wrote:
| I opened this thread wondering who Joe Rogan is; glancing at
| that I'm not surprised I don't know, and have certainly lost
| any interest in knowing!
| mhh__ wrote:
| The thing of Joe Rogan shouting at the primatologist about
| the "new" chimpanzee is genuinely hilarious
|
| https://youtu.be/__CvmS6uw7E
| godelski wrote:
| > During that episode I have came to conclusion that Bill
| Burr is who ~~Joe Rogan~~ people on the internet see~~s~~
| themselves as~~himself~~. Eloquent, humorous, says-
| he's-stupid-but-he-is-actually-smart, able to step back and
| look at all the stupid stuff everyone does (including
| himself).
|
| FTFY
|
| Side note, on /r/Math the other day I saw a great joke.
|
| People in real life: Ops, I'm bad at math. I need a
| calculator to calculate a tip.
|
| People on the internet: Allow me to demonstrate to you why
| I'm bad at statistics but confident I'm right and all the
| scientists are wrong.
| serverholic wrote:
| I've noticed that a lot of overly-confident people do this.
| They essentially have a list of preferred topics and always
| try to bring the conversation to those topics.
| mjklin wrote:
| > What's your rap these days? Most of us have one. Is it a
| disquisition on the stupidity of television, the rapacity
| of multinational corporations, how the Yuppies had it
| coming to them, the thrills of motorcycling, the perils of
| tuna fish? Some people are always ready to mount the
| soapbox. (It's the twelfth time you've heard this guy's
| tirade and it was already boring the second time around.)
|
| > The worst sort of rap is the pet peeve. Pet peeves manage
| to smuggle their way into every conversation, no matter
| what the topic. Marty is hung up on America's foolishness
| in not imposing tariffs against the Japanese. It's not
| clear why he takes this so personally, but he's definitely
| obsessed with the problem. The topic of conversation is
| Monday-night football? Marty contrives a quick segue to the
| state of television in America, orchestrates a smooth turn
| to the subject of the future Japanese control of the
| entertainment business, and-- presto-- tariffs. Marty's rap
| is boring for the same reason the preacher's is-- it's
| predictable-- but it's also an imposition. He uses friends
| as a sounding board for his venting.
|
| - From the book _Everyday Ethics_ by Joshua Halberstam
| godelski wrote:
| I don't mind this as much. At least they are talking about
| things that they are knowledgeable about. What I don't like
| is when people are overly confident about their YouTube
| degree. The armchair experts that need to prove how smart
| they are, even if you're an expert in the field they're
| talking about. It is excruciatingly painful.
| ErikVandeWater wrote:
| The CDC has been an embarrassment. No emphasis on protecting
| the most vulnerable.
| beaner wrote:
| For it to be the schtick that'd have to be sort of the pont of
| the show, but it's only a topic of discussion so long as it's
| made relevant by those in our society, and even then that
| ignores the large diversity of guests and topics in his show.
|
| There's nothing wrong with listening to two regular people have
| a conversation regardless of their qualifications for the
| topics they're discussing. They don't pretend to be
| professionals. (Hence why that quote can be said and why they
| can laugh about it.)
| mmrezaie wrote:
| I think we all know JRE is not about two people having shit
| conversation. I used to listen to it since 2016. In the past
| couple of years, JRE is all about let's bring out what
| triggers the other side; no matter what the other side is all
| about.
|
| I have friends I have lost because of this, whom I have no
| idea how to respond to their messages anymore; Intelligent
| and educated ones.
|
| Regular people argument doesn't apply in here.
| hirvi74 wrote:
| I agree. He used to have interesting guest, and I felt the
| conversations were more organic. I quit watching a few
| years back because I did not enjoy the direction the
| podcast was going in.
| pohl wrote:
| Joe is "regular people"? He's a sitcom actor. He makes a
| couple hundred million a year on podcast ad revenue alone. He
| only presents himself as a "regular" person because that's
| the demographic he's targeting.
| manigandham wrote:
| He does not make "hundreds of millions a year" on podcast
| ad revenue, that's a ridiculously high number. The entire
| podcast ad market is barely $1B total.
| Bud wrote:
| FYI, no, he makes about an order of magnitude less than
| that, total, from all sources.
|
| He made $30M last year.
| usefulcat wrote:
| The trees have been refuted but the forest remains..
| 0xy wrote:
| The CDC has repeatedly made misleading statements though.
|
| In particular, the CDC recommended against the use of masks
| early in the pandemic, which may have caused many thousands of
| cases and deaths.
|
| More recently, they've been wishy-washy on masks again.
| Backflipping repeatedly on whether vaccinated individuals
| should wear masks.
| bloopernova wrote:
| The various health authorities told people not to use masks
| _at first_ because:
|
| Hospitals were in danger of running out of protective
| equipment.
|
| The public was panic buying anything and everything. Remember
| empty grocery store shelves? Price gouging people who were
| hoarding all the hand sanitizer?
|
| When those circumstances changed, so did the advice.
|
| There's no one on earth who gets everything right first time,
| and thus never needs to change their mind. Not one single
| person.
|
| Why do you value an opinion or advice that never changes?
| 0xy wrote:
| The CDC did not say "don't buy masks because healthcare
| professionals need them". The CDC falsely claimed they were
| not effective.
|
| This false narrative persists even today.
|
| How many thousands died because they were told by an
| authority masks don't work?
|
| Your point of view seems to suggest that the ends justify
| the means. I ask you how many deaths are an acceptable
| amount of collateral damage to protect the health system's
| access to masks. 1,000? 5,000? 50,000?
| wrycoder wrote:
| It persists, because procedure/surgical masks do
| virtually nothing to stop SARS2. [0] I won't even mention
| cloth masks.
|
| _In sum, of the 14 RCTs that have tested the
| effectiveness of masks in preventing the transmission of
| respiratory viruses, three suggest, but do not provide
| any statistically significant evidence in intention-to-
| treat analysis, that masks might be useful. The other
| eleven suggest that masks are either useless--whether
| compared with no masks or because they appear not to add
| to good hand hygiene alone--or actually
| counterproductive. Of the three studies that provided
| statistically significant evidence in intention-to-treat
| analysis that was not contradicted within the same study,
| one found that the combination of surgical masks and hand
| hygiene was less effective than hand hygiene alone, one
| found that the combination of surgical masks and hand
| hygiene was less effective than nothing, and one found
| that cloth masks were less effective than surgical
| masks._
|
| N95 are better, but those are not generally available to
| civilians.
|
| [0] https://www.city-journal.org/do-masks-work-a-review-
| of-the-e...
| CoryG89 wrote:
| Umm, perhaps I'm mistaken, but I'm fairly certain that,
| at least in the US, it's always been fairly easy to
| obtain N95 masks, up until the pandemic. I realized I had
| a box of them lying around which my ex-girlfriend had
| purchased for painting.
| tomp wrote:
| So basically you're saying "they lied but it's OK because
| it was a well-intentioned lie".
|
| That's what's making people lose trust in institutions.
| mynameisash wrote:
| > So basically you're saying "they lied but it's OK
| because it was a well-intentioned lie".
|
| That's not at all what GP said. Try re-reading it:
|
| >> health authorities told people not to use masks at
| first because ... Hospitals were in danger of running out
| of protective equipment.
|
| That is in no way lying.
| jldugger wrote:
| I don't recall them saying 'hospitals need them more,'
| but rather 'masks have no proven effect' while people
| inside the CDC later admitted the concern was the first
| bit. I'm pretty sure that's a lie; while maybe they can
| argue about foment size effects etc. meant it technically
| wasn't a lie, I think we can all agree the public heard
| none of that nuance.
| Bhilai wrote:
| CDC is working with limited information on a novel virus. As
| they are learning more they are shifting their guidance to
| match the current understanding about how the virus spreads.
| 0xy wrote:
| CDC knowingly lied about masks, though. They knew
| internally they should be used to mitigate spread, but
| publicly discouraged their use.
|
| There was no new information. There were only lies.
| mavhc wrote:
| That's because they were dealing with idiots, if you
| don't want to be treated like idiots, don't be idiots.
| symlinkk wrote:
| If you don't want to be treated like a liar, don't be a
| liar.
| suzzer99 wrote:
| This. I just wish he'd take his enormous reach a little more
| seriously when he entertains quack pseudoscience as if it's an
| equally valid POV to real peer-reviewed science.
| nradov wrote:
| You're asking a _professional comedian_ to be more serious?
| Are you actually serious or is that a joke?
| tych0 wrote:
| Seems like GP might be talking about Joe Rogan.
| Alupis wrote:
| Joe Rogan is a professional comedian, among other side
| gigs like his podcast and commentating UFC fights.
| [deleted]
| frosted-flakes wrote:
| JRE is not a comedy show though.
| Bud wrote:
| Being a comedian does not magically relieve a person from
| their responsibility to not credulously spread around
| dangerous pseudoscience during a pandemic. Plus, that's
| simply not very funny. By the way, GP did not say "be more
| serious", as you likely know. They said he should take his
| enormous reach more seriously.
| neither_color wrote:
| Every influential social network already has disclaimers
| with links to authoritative information about C-19 for
| those who choose to inform themselves.
|
| "Visit the covid 19 information center to learn more"
|
| These are all over and post on Facebook, Youtube,
| Twitter, etc whenever certain keywords trigger it. I
| think this is not enough. We need to replace all right of
| center entertainment with videos of Dr Fauci reminding us
| to wash our hands, wear masks, get our shots and do the
| right thing by staying home. Not enough people are
| getting this message.
| nradov wrote:
| If you give a monkey a machine gun, and the monkey shoots
| someone, we don't blame the monkey.
|
| Society has always had court jesters who poke fun at
| authority. If you take health and epidemiology advice
| from a _comedian_ then that 's on you.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Joe Rogan is the one giving the gun is your scenario, so
| you're claiming we should blame him?
| aaronbrethorst wrote:
| _If you take health and epidemiology advice from a
| comedian then that 's on you_
|
| And every person you infect.
| ds206 wrote:
| And every person you don't infect?
| CydeWeys wrote:
| That metaphor doesn't work though because Joe Rogan is a
| person, not a monkey. Give a person a machine gun and if
| they shoot someone you _do_ blame them.
| mavhc wrote:
| But what if he only did it for the lulz?
| ds206 wrote:
| "Being a comedian does not magically relieve a person
| from their responsibility to not credulously spread
| around dangerous pseudoscience during a pandemic."
|
| Yeah, I think it does. Has he been cancelled? Nope. Does
| he stop making jokes about almost anything? Nope. Do you
| listen to his podcast? Nope.
|
| You know how he became so popular? From talking and being
| open minded. That's _all_ he does. He ain't doing it to
| be an influencer yet "journalists" actually waste time
| writing articles like this. I guess the haters need
| something to read too?
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Joe's anti mask bullshit has caused people to die. Yea, I'd
| like him to take that seriously.
| neither_color wrote:
| Are you accusing Joe Rogan of manslaughter?
| dntrkv wrote:
| Yeah that's Joe's classic defense. He's part of the
| "Intellectual Dark Web" (lol...) and he tries to have
| serious discussions and opinions on important matters. But
| as soon as someone points out how stupid and misleading
| some of his takes are, he falls back on the "I'm just a
| comedian" excuse.
|
| Like someone else pointed out, Bill Burr is exactly what
| you describe. He's a comedian that discusses these topics
| but never gives the illusion that he is somehow qualified
| and someone that should be listened to. Joe does.
| coryfklein wrote:
| I've listened to 4-5 Joe Rogan episodes and not once got
| the impression that he was trying to be a comedian. Now I
| may be an idiot, but I don't think I'm _exceptionally_
| idiotic compared to most folks who might come across his
| content.
| labster wrote:
| Comedy is a profession. Professionals should take their job
| seriously. Just because the product is fun and games
| doesn't mean social responsibility ends.
| nradov wrote:
| Comedy is an _occupation_ , not a profession. Actual
| professions have specialized training, a defined body of
| knowledge, ethical standards, and a formal certification
| process. For example: law, medicine, teaching,
| architecture, accountancy. Comedians have no more social
| responsibility than any other random person. There's no
| comedian's guild that's going to kick out a comic for
| being irresponsible.
| hhsbz wrote:
| Is this a joke? How many different things have scientists
| said about every single thing that has happened in this
| pandemic?
| [deleted]
| secondcoming wrote:
| That's what Joe Rogan's show is all about. It's pretty much
| him talking about the same nonsense that anyone else would
| talk about when hanging out with their friends. He never
| pretended to be anything else, and it's why his show is so
| popular. That said, since he moved to Spotify I've hardly
| seen anything other than the occasional clip on AdTube.
|
| If you want high-brow stuff there's Lex Fridman's channel.
| atlgator wrote:
| Lex Fridman does the same thing for non-robotics/AI issues.
| It's wild how someone so brilliant in one area can be so
| naive in another.
| picklesman wrote:
| I was cringing during his discussion with Rogan because
| of this.
|
| It's a common pitfall for a certain type of nerd to think
| that expertise in one area allows them to make claims in
| completely unrelated fields.
|
| That and he didn't challenge Rogan's mostly unfounded
| claims about the COVID vaccine among other things. I
| understand that it must be difficult I do so as a guest,
| but for someone who fancies himself "rational" it was
| disappointing to say the least.
| amusedcyclist wrote:
| Lex Fridman is not highbrow or academic lol, hes a hype
| machine just like most tech media
| secondcoming wrote:
| I see. What podcasts do you follow?
| fbru02 wrote:
| Machine Learning Street Talk
| Barrin92 wrote:
| Fridman is slowly going down the same route with more and
| more comedians and nutritionists and ufo people on his
| channel. I wish he just had sticked to interview scientists
| because nowadays I probably archive 2/3 of his episodes.
| AzzieElbab wrote:
| I clicked that yt link and saw two friends with sense of humor
| busting each others balls. ppl are reading too much into things
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| This is the most frustrating thing about Rogan for me... if he
| were talking to people as an uniformed layman and sharing his
| opinion in an effort to weed through his thoughts and become
| more informed, that would be great! We need more people who are
| willing to be wrong and learn from that. This is often how Bill
| Burr comes across (to me, anyway).
|
| But Rogan's not that. He likes to hear himself talk, throws his
| opinions at experts as if they're equally valid, invites
| charlatans on and equates them with experts, rarely changes his
| mind, and comes out of it just as dumb as he came into it. Then
| people emulate him and end up in a state where they're less
| able to learn, and frankly, bigger assholes.
|
| It's barely even a shtick, it's the same old pseudo-
| intellectual machismo that has always plagued society.
| techrat wrote:
| The worst part for me was when Rogan started allowing people
| who were spewing obvious bullshit... to have his platform
| unchallenged.
|
| When someone tells you who they are, listen. But I'd add
| this: When someone lets someone else speak for them, pay
| attention to who is in that group.
| [deleted]
| xupybd wrote:
| I have a Spotify subscription. I used to watch Joe on YouTube. I
| haven't since he moved. I use Spotify at work to have something
| to drown out the noise around me. I watch YouTube to relax. My
| habits mean I don't even think of going to Spotify for a podcast.
| djrogers wrote:
| Looks like I was mistaken - there is a JRE channel but it may
| be just clips
| neartheplain wrote:
| Not exactly. He no longer posts full episodes to YouTube,
| just occasional clips:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/user/PowerfulJRE
| xupybd wrote:
| I used to sit down and watch an hour or two of a full
| interview. I've not done so since I'd have to use Spotify to
| watch a full interview.
| fridif wrote:
| Joe has publicly said that he did the deal for the money and
| nothing else. More power to him. Y'all have it twisted.
| blueprint wrote:
| how do they have it twisted?
| chucksta wrote:
| They think he cares more about his reach then is dollars
| Alupis wrote:
| In the podcasting world, reach == dollars. With a declining
| audience, his show will generate declining revenue for
| Spotify, and eventually he will receive less money because
| of it.
|
| Keep in mind, Rogan said multiple times on his show he
| would never sell out because he wanted to do whatever he
| wanted to do... then he sold out to a platform that
| immediately cut off a large portion of his viewership.
| blueprint wrote:
| who does?
| chimen wrote:
| He left a void which is now being filled by Lex Friedman and
| others. Rogan doesn't even bother placing something about the
| podcast in title - he just names the guest which doesn't say
| anything to me so I dropped his show long time ago. Even went
| that far and send him an email regarding how frustrating it is to
| just listen to show after show until you find a subject that you
| like.
|
| What he lost with YouTube is their algorithm which kept
| recommending bits and pieces aligned to what the user was already
| watching. With Spotify he's just there as an author/podcaster -
| nothing on the subject of what I am currently listening - he lost
| the context.
|
| I placing his growth on YouTube and its recommendation engine
| more than anything else.
| the_third_wave wrote:
| Yes, of course he's losing influence seeing as how he's
| haemorrhaging listeners - like me - who do not want to get
| Spotify only to listen to Rogan. He often has interesting guests,
| he has no problems trampling all over the boundaries of
| correctness (which I deem to be a good thing) but he should have
| realised that there is a large overlap between the group of
| people who might be interested in listening to such conversations
| and the group of people who do not want to feed the Big Data
| Beast by installing and running apps like Spotify. I listen to a
| lot of netcasts using my own aggregator (based on Airsonic) which
| can handle anything which is available through an RSS feed.
| Spotify does not integrate with this system which means that
| Spotify-only content simply will be ignored - there is enough
| competition on the netcast market after all.
| salamanderman wrote:
| Good
| atlgator wrote:
| The only Joe Rogan episodes worth watching are the Tim Dillon
| ones. If you know, you know. Otherwise, I stopped watching when
| he moved to Spotify. It's just a terrible platform all-around. He
| destroyed his brand for $150M.
| meowface wrote:
| Tim Dillon episodes are my favorites, but IMO he hasn't totally
| run out of good guests since the Spotify move. The Dave
| Chappelle and Quentin Tarantino ones were pretty interesting to
| watch.
| comodore_ wrote:
| Life in the big city.
| zepto wrote:
| This seemed like the obvious trap he was going to fall into.
|
| I used to listen to him when he interviewed someone I was
| interested in. I even installed Spotify so I can access his
| podcast.
|
| In practice, because I don't use Spotify for anything else, I
| have simply forgotten about him.
| topspin wrote:
| "This seemed like the obvious trap he was going to fall into."
|
| He cashed in before his expiration date. Brilliant move.
| kbenson wrote:
| He was given $100 million dollars up front to crash before
| his expiration date. Yes, that is a brilliant move.
| noveltyaccount wrote:
| wow, I never heard that figure, that is staggering IMO,
| I've never understood why Joe was famous, never got his
| appeal. Per WSJ, "The deal with Mr. Rogan is a multiyear
| licensing agreement for an amount of time that couldn't be
| learned. It will likely be worth more than $100 million
| based on milestones and performance metrics, according to
| the person familiar." Wonder what those milestones are like
| and how important they are to Joe.
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/spotify-strikes-exclusive-
| podca...
| incadenza wrote:
| I don't like Joe Rogan but his earlier episodes were my
| first introduction to real long form, off the cuff
| conversations that have become pretty common now. Even
| relatively recently, I watched the Bernie Sanders one and
| felt like I hadn't really heard Bernie Sanders just have
| a conversation like that for a long period. Among others
| I know, that, at least used to, be the appeal.
| sschueller wrote:
| He said not to long ago that he was actually hoping to be less
| famous and relevant by moving to Spotify. He wanted less lime
| light. However to him it backfired as more people are talking
| about him although less are probably actually listening.
| Bellamy wrote:
| Would you fell into a trap like this for 100.000.000$?
| zepto wrote:
| Apparently he made $30M in the year before the deal.
|
| If the deal lasts for more than 2 years, then he has made a
| serious error.
| selfhoster11 wrote:
| You can retire with a high standard of living for the rest
| of your life with that amount as a lump sum. It's not clear
| to me that the decision was wrong.
| Proven wrote:
| There's no question that can't be solved with elementary
| school math, right?
|
| Did he personally tell you that entering 2025 with a net
| worth of $175 rather than $195 million would present a
| serious problem for him? Does he not care more about other
| things in life?
| tomjakubowski wrote:
| Is Spotify the only source of revenue from his podcast? I
| don't listen to JRE, but this thread suggests he's still
| running third-party ads on the show. Presumably then he's
| still getting some portion of that $30M/year on top of what
| Spotify pays him.
|
| > Spotify doesn't play or include ads that interrupt the
| listening experience of Premium subscribers. However, some
| podcast creators may include third-party advertising, host-
| read endorsements, or sponsorship messages in their
| episodes.
|
| https://community.spotify.com/t5/Other-Podcasts-Partners-
| etc...
| ganoushoreilly wrote:
| Not only does he run the ads (though I suspect spotify
| reaps those benefits), they're randomly inserting them in
| the podcast now and it's annoying. Sometimes it's mid
| sentence.
|
| Annoying to both pay for spotify and get hammered with
| ads. Granted I pay for the music, but it's still annoying
| as all.
| christoph wrote:
| When this happened to me I assumed Spotify had become
| logged out of my account somehow. Nope, they're injecting
| adverts randomly into paying customers podcasts. I
| cancelled Spotify that moment. I never really agreed with
| their attempted land grab on podcasts, this, however, I
| felt had really crossed a line. There are plenty of other
| podcasts I listen to, some without ads, supported only by
| Patreon, etc. so the money I spent on Spotify will get
| redistributed to them.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| Its even worse, up until a few weeks ago, you could rip
| his podcasts using youtube-dl. I am paying for a
| subscription to support him but ripping his podcasts and
| throwing away their garbage app in favor of Jellyfin. Now
| they have begun encrypting his podcasts with Widevine. :/
|
| Since I still have to listen to ads, i'm thinking of just
| dropping the subscription and hoping there becomes a
| method to break this Widevine trash. I encounter a bug
| with their app on a daily basis and I am tired of it.
| From what I gather, there are different levels of
| Widevine encryption that limit video quality but the
| lower levels are crackable. I hope someone smarter than
| me tries the crack on the JRE podcast.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| That assumes that his podcast had at least 3 years of legs,
| which is not at all clear to me.
| TedShiller wrote:
| I like Joe Rogan but yeah I didn't follow him to Spotify. Can't
| wait for him to come back.
| throwawaysea wrote:
| Spotify and Rogan is a key example of how centralization into
| walled gardens is detrimental. I enjoyed easy, uncensored access
| to Joe Rogan's interviews and clips from them previously. But
| without that ease of access, I basically forgot about him. This
| is despite me being a paying customer of Spotify.
|
| Spotify has also demonstrated that they cannot be trusted,
| neutral stewards of information ecosystems like podcasts. They've
| censored/deleted lots of Joe Rogan's interviews, and their left-
| biased progressive employees have repeatedly protested against
| Rogan and asked for him to be booted off the platform. There is
| absolutely no way I will patronize podcasts on Spotify since I
| don't want to hand such a group the keys to the castle.
| tejohnso wrote:
| I find myself listening to Lex much more, and Joe much less.
| Overall, I'm very glad that the format exists, and we're able to
| hear from experts / academics who otherwise wouldn't have a
| platform to really get into the details of their work.
| bob229 wrote:
| Who cares
| trimbo wrote:
| Maybe it's because an election concluded and all news-type media
| has dropped off considerably.
|
| https://thehill.com/homenews/media/551210-tv-news-ratings-on...
| elliekelly wrote:
| Joe Rogan is not "news-type" media by any stretch of the
| imagination.
| truthwhisperer wrote:
| written by a journalist who does not understand statistics. He is
| still gaining twitter followers but not on the same rate.
|
| so his reach grows, but not as fast as it used to be.
|
| probably the same journalist who write about climate change
| betwixthewires wrote:
| Yeah I know I stopped listening since the show went exclusive. I
| didn't listen to every single episode he did, but I did listen
| pretty regularly. I have not seen a single one since and don't
| really care to.
|
| I won't get an account with a company just to hear what you have
| to say. If you require that, as far as I'm concerned your
| influence just waned a little. I'm steadfast and unflinching in
| this, it is a firm rule I have.
| dec0dedab0de wrote:
| It's obvious that ratings are down, but it's still enough to make
| money. Here are Some recent changes I can think of that cause
| lower ratings, all but one are related to Spotify.
|
| Spotify is awful to use.
|
| Not live anymore.
|
| Haven't done the fight companion since the Brian Callen
| allegations.
|
| Too afraid to be cancelled.
|
| So many more podcasts now. Especially Tim Dillon and Flagrant2.
| goodfight wrote:
| He wanted less attention, you can't be king of the hill forever
| chromejs10 wrote:
| Good
| anfogoat wrote:
| I enjoyed listening to Joe's podcast quite a bit, and had been
| since around the hundredth episode, but to me podcasts always
| equaled audio files indexed in an RSS feed. So as far as I'm
| concerned Spotify does not have podcasts, and that they tout
| otherwise is enough for me to avoid them out of spite, Joe or no
| Joe.
|
| Haven't heard Joe's voice in my ear since mid 2020.
| bamboozled wrote:
| After his "emergency" podcast on Ivermectin, I'd day this is
| likely net positive thing for society.
|
| Not a personal attack on the guy, I just think maybe all the
| influence is going to his head a bit.
| shoulderfake wrote:
| Echochamber effect here I presume. Joe Rogan is doing just fine
| on Spotify. He can choose not to extend at the end of his
| contract, go back to YouTube and continue just where he left off.
| jjulius wrote:
| >Joe Rogan is doing just fine on Spotify.
|
| This article produced data to back up their assertion, I would
| be curious to see the data you're looking at that helps you
| make yours.
| Dma54rhs wrote:
| That implies constant growth is the only measurable metric.
| Probably it is for Spotify, maybe for Rogan, but it doesn't
| have to be.
| jjulius wrote:
| No, it asks for any specific example of how one might
| suggest he is doing "just fine". I would just like to see
| _why_ someone thinks this article is incorrect, not simply
| that they think so. I would be fine with someone suggesting
| an alternative to constant growth as an example.
| scrumbledober wrote:
| i think making $100 million could definitely be
| considered on the high side of doing "just fine"
| Darmody wrote:
| I used to see his clips on recommended and after watching some of
| them I would look for the whole podcast if it was interesting.
|
| Now I don't even read the name Joe Rogan if I'm not watching UFC.
|
| It's sad because I really enjoyed some of his content.
| CoryG89 wrote:
| Anecdotally, for me I didn't watch it religiously, but I would
| watch anytime there was a guest that I liked or found
| interesting. I haven't watched a single show since he moved to
| Spotify.
| wnevets wrote:
| At some point most of his listeners will realize just how
| terrible he is. MMA is supposed to be his bread and butter but
| his takes are absolutely trash. Every fighter is a killer, every
| champion is the GOAT, etc.
| elzbardico wrote:
| Spotify is no longer the only kid in town. First I had moved to
| tidal because of supposedly better audio. Then one day I figured
| out that I already pay for prime and get prime music with it,
| already pay Apple's one iCloud bundle and get Apple Music with
| it, so tidal also went to the cancellation hole with Spotify. Not
| going to have an Spotify account just to listen to Joe Rogan.
| anm89 wrote:
| Im sure the money was more than enough for him to feel
| compensated
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Yeah it's not like Joe's goal in life was to influence people.
| Dude wants to make a living talking to people, which he's
| achieved 100fold
| anm89 wrote:
| I agree. I don't think influence isn't important to him but I
| don't think he is in it for world domination.
| Bellamy wrote:
| I'm paying Spotify Premium and still have to listen ads during
| the show.
|
| Spotify also sends video even though I just need the audio. It's
| a waste of valuable bandwidth and CPU.
|
| If there would an alternative I would take it.
|
| Anyway I have definitely listened JRE way less lately...
| jjulius wrote:
| >I'm paying Spotify Premium and still have to listen ads during
| the show.
|
| I have Spotify and don't listen to podcasts much at all. When I
| have, it hasn't been on Spotify and I've always been able to
| skip through the recording to get past the ad (either with a
| "skip fwd 15 secs" button or by grabbing the slider and moving
| it manually). Does Spotify not offer that capability?
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| They've made it simple to skip ads because each ad pops up as
| a track that you can scrobble to the end of. I assume they're
| satisfied with this because my dragging my finger across the
| name of the advertiser is probably a better signal of
| impression than hoping I was actually present during the ad
| roll.
|
| But Apple podcasts "skip 15sec" is still easier, I can do it
| without looking while driving.
| neartheplain wrote:
| >each ad pops up as a track that you can scrobble to the
| end of
|
| The first time this happened to me (while loading up a Joe
| Rogan podcast), I legitimately thought Spotify was
| glitching out. There's no visual indication in the app that
| it's a temporary ad, or of how many ads you have to listen
| to before the episode starts. I made it to the beginning of
| the third ad track before giving up.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| I did experience an infinite ad loop once and force
| closed the app and opened it again. Spotify is buggy AF.
| jjice wrote:
| There's a setting to disable video podcasts and only get the
| audio. I don't want to watch a podcast via Spotify, and I hate
| that it's hidden away in settings, but it is there.
| a9h74j wrote:
| Not a single-video-file like solution, but you might think e.g.
| Youtube, Spotify etc could sync a separate audio file and stop
| the video streaming when a tab is hidden. Such a predictable
| waste of bandwidth, as you observe, that it might even merit
| browser support.
| Andys wrote:
| YouTube premium does this
| Andys wrote:
| YouTube premium does this.
| willcipriano wrote:
| The guys who rip it to YouTube cut out the commercials, and
| NewPipe delivers the audio feed ad free. I'm not a big Rogan
| guy but even if I paid for Spotify I'd probably watch it that
| way.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| Is there some reliable source of his podcasts on Youtube?
| Like a hidden channel or something that won't be taken down
| by copyright requests every 5 seconds?
| willcipriano wrote:
| A search for "Joe Rogan Full Podcast" (Full is a magic word
| on YouTube for this sort of thing, "Full Movie" "Full
| Episode" etc) typically works for me, but you may have to
| warm up the recommendation algorithm so it recommends
| similar channels to what you have watched before (ie. fly
| by night channels hosting ripped podcasts).
| secondcoming wrote:
| I'm not sure the article's method of measuring influence is
| valid.
|
| - It assumes Twitter use is constant and its not losing users
| (I've deactivated my account, even though I hardly used it).
|
| - It assumes Twitter hasn't improved bot detection since before
|
| - It assumes that the issue is with Rogan rather than the guest
| (maybe it could be argued that Rogan is getting 'uninteresting'
| guests because of a waning influence)
| chadlavi wrote:
| Good.
| comodore_ wrote:
| these seem like very flawed metrics to say the least. but then
| for twitter journos, twitter is everything.
| optimalsolver wrote:
| Just like Howard Stern moving to satellite radio or whatever it
| was.
|
| Out of sight, out of mind.
|
| This is also the dilemma writers face when putting their content
| behind a paywall. The conversation just moves on without you.
| jollybean wrote:
| All regular media consumption is down, ratings for all news is
| down, I think we're all suffering from social media consumption
| fatigue, and there's is also an explosion of podcasts to listen
| to now.
|
| The Economist has daily 45 minutes, Conan O'Brien is on audio
| only etc..
|
| And he might actually have a broader audience than before, does
| it matter that much that guests 'new follower' metrics are down?
|
| I think there's a broader context to consider here.
| falcrist wrote:
| > All regular media consumption is down, ratings for all news
| is down, I think we're all suffering from social media
| consumption fatigue
|
| A quick google search seems to contradict this. Can you point
| me towards a source that backs these claims?
| beebmam wrote:
| The more he embraces conspiracy theories, the less I find him
| persuasive. At this point, with his embrace of anti-vaccination
| ideas and being completely mostly to medical science and the
| scientific community out of contrarianism, I find him more
| annoying than interesting.
| slickrick216 wrote:
| Joe Rogan confined to his bath of money doesn't care in the
| slightest.
| andrewzah wrote:
| I think anyone would take that deal for $100 million. Joe's the
| real winner while people argue in the comments about this or that
| about his podcast. Clearly, having controversial guests on is
| fantastic for his podcast's influence.
|
| I don't think Spotify is good for podcasts in general. I much
| prefer to consume podcasts with my own clients and workflows.
| Even youtube is better since it actually works well unlike the
| spotify app in my experience.
| ldiracdelta wrote:
| Exactly. I used to enjoy Joe Rogan, but I have my podcast
| system and I'm unwilling to change. I'm absolutely not going to
| change from a working federated system via RSS/atom xml to a
| centralized system where the employees throw a hissy fit about
| crime-think. I'm sure Spotify converted many customers and at
| $100 million, Joe Rogan won regardless.
| orange_puff wrote:
| Maybe all good things simply need to come to an end. I feel like
| he basically has boomer politics now and the same predictable
| opinion over and over can get old. My brother said something that
| I think is true; Joe seems like the kind of guy who believes
| whatever the last person he spoke to said, so after moving to
| Austin he's become more conservative.
| rattlesnakedave wrote:
| >all good things simply need to come to an end I think this is
| the crux of it. After >1600 episodes, how much is there left to
| say?
| kevwil wrote:
| Good.
|
| Sorry, Joe, but that was a bad move. Let me know when you start
| podcasting again.
|
| The turf war over the commercialization of podcasting reminds me
| of the Internet - designed to be free and open, destined to be
| walled off from free use and exploited to death.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| The ones with Carmack and an ex-pilot (regarding UFO) were
| interesting. Other than that I really didn't have any knowledge
| of. It's more of the people he interviewed then his channel.
| yellow_lead wrote:
| It's even hard to listen to these. I have heard enough of
| Rogan's "Wow!" and "Really?" to last a lifetime.
| bostonsre wrote:
| Lex did one [1] with the same pilot that saw the ufo
| (commander fravor). I went from "no friggin way do they
| exist" to "shit... it actually sounds plausible".
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB8zcAttP1E
| falcrist wrote:
| I had no idea John Carmack had gone on the podcast.
| mwidell wrote:
| John Carmack and James Hetfield are a couple of very
| interesting guests he had.
| surajs wrote:
| Joe has had one hell of a run, I don't think he minds losing
| influence
| billylindeman wrote:
| Pretty much haven't listened at all since his move to spotify. I
| don't blame him for selling out at all, but spotify is garbage
| for podcasts. If he went back to youtube I'd probably watch again
| Goety wrote:
| He needs more mainstream influence. Spotify does not promote
| itself well.
| rob_c wrote:
| So the verge finds something preferentially biased against some
| right wing creator therefore something obviously unbiased...
|
| It's reminding me of the gay frogs. Some truth, with an annoying
| presentation that distracts from the point.
| soheil wrote:
| I think 2nd guest appearances are not going to see as big of a
| spike in followers than the 1st in general since it's likely that
| the same audience who were going to follow the guest have already
| done so, so not sure how much of this decrease can be attributed
| to a platform change.
| fedreserved wrote:
| Make sure to circle back for the Tom ONeil episode. He spent 20
| years writing a book about Charles Manskm, and unearthed several
| earth shattering revelations about the case.1. cia was most
| likely involved in allowing Charles Manson who was on probation
| throughout the entire period get away with multiple probation
| violations after spending half his life in prison. As a criminal
| defense attorney with the evidence he laid oitz it's obviois
| Manson had some sort of guardian angel Also lead prosecutor led
| key witnesses to commit perjury. The motive for the Tate murder
| the prosecutor put on was to send a message to the record
| producer who used to own the house. Key witnesses told him that
| the record producer was seem several times after the murders
| happened, and at trial the testimony was different.
| SXX wrote:
| When he moved to Spotify I suppose I'll get his podcasts from
| torrents, but then I end up finding far more interesting podcasts
| to replace him. After all if any of his episodes are interesting
| I can just listen them two years later.
| captaindiego wrote:
| Any recommendations you can offer for interesting podcasts?
| SXX wrote:
| As already mentioned there is Lex Fridman. Some people
| including me dislike the way he speaks, but listening on x2+
| speed fixes that. I also enjoyed The Tim Ferris Show and he
| generally have more guests who are not related to tech.
|
| Though I mostly went deeper into podcasts related to software
| engineering and since most of them include a lot of off-topic
| some are quite fun: Soft Skills Engineering, The Bike Shed,
| Indie Hackers Podcast, Talk Python to Me, Unnamed RE Podcast.
|
| So there is always more interesting podcasts than time I have
| for listening. Might be you can't replace Rogan with one
| show, but you can always diversify.
| Zelphyr wrote:
| I would like to mention Armchair Expert but they cashed in at
| the Bank of Spotify as well. Such a shame because it's a
| really enjoyable podcast.
|
| That said; _Jocko Podcast_ is good, though the subject matter
| can be very heavy at times.
|
| _Lex Fridman_ podcast is good. Some people don 't like his
| somewhat monotoned voice but he has interesting guests.
|
| _Literally! With Rob Lowe_ is fun.
| RobLach wrote:
| Sure you can blame spotify but generally personality based
| entertainment goes in and out of vogue quite quickly.
| pleb_nz wrote:
| 8m not sure how his podcasts were distributed previously, but I
| would have thought a more multiplatform approach would work
| better long term. A lot of people don't have Spotify, I'm one of
| those, for the same price as Spotify I can get YouTube premium
| for me and the extended family, kill all ads, allow downloads and
| access to a decent music streaming catalog. Last time I checked
| the prices were not to dissimilar.
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| It did. Joe even said he didn't care about itunes ratings back
| in the day. He just wanted people to listen to it in anyway
| they liked.
| laurent92 wrote:
| I think he was promised $100m for the Spotify exclusivity. No
| multiplatform works better than $100m ;)
| criddell wrote:
| It has also been argued Joe sold out at way too low of a
| price.
|
| https://www.supercast.com/blog/joe-rogan-got-ripped-off
| meowface wrote:
| Apparently it was a bigger number than that, though the exact
| number isn't known.
| ProAm wrote:
| I think it was more than 100MM, he was making ~30MM per year
| on his own, and he signed a 3 year deal with Spotify. Im not
| sure why you'd sell for the exact amount you'd make if you
| just kept doing what you are doing with the exception of
| having to handle all advertising yourself and possible
| delisting/banning from YouTube.
| laurent92 wrote:
| So he was a unicorn? A startup valued at a billion dollars
| was supposed to be so rare that it's a unicorn, and now
| people are doing that with a microphone in a cave ;) (or
| little more, but technically he's one voice).
| tailspin2019 wrote:
| Joe Rogan moving to Spotify is like Twitter moving to requiring
| login.
|
| The increased friction has resulted in stopping me from consuming
| two things that I should have been cutting down on anyway.
| [deleted]
| AzzieElbab wrote:
| It is hard to make an argument against YT having the highest
| reach among vloging platforms. However, repeated guests not
| gaining as many Twitter followers as they did after first visit
| might be an indication of diminishing returns
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Could also be a commensurate drop in interest in Twitter
| newbamboo wrote:
| I thought this at first, but now think the opposite is true. His
| viewpoints were more diluted previously. A smaller base is of
| regular listeners paradoxically makes his messages stronger.
| nyx-aiur wrote:
| Does it?
| bitwize wrote:
| Inasmuch as his message doesn't offend Spotify, their key
| strategic partners, or their financial service providers --
| sure, I'll buy that.
| newbamboo wrote:
| Censorship is worse on YouTube. Think of how many affiliates
| YouTube/google/nbc has. I'd say more than Spotify. There's a
| reason AM radio has more "extreme" content than FM radio. A
| wider audience means more people to appease; have to cater to
| the common denominator.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| > There's a reason AM radio has more "extreme" content than
| FM radio. A wider audience means more people to appease;
| have to cater to the common denominator.
|
| What? AM stations tend to have larger ranges (FM is limited
| by line-of-sight). There tends to be more talk on AM
| because the audio quality is lower (and more susceptible to
| interference); I would assume that talk radio (where
| opinions are actually being discussed) would naturally have
| more "extreme" content than music, where the opinions are
| diluted by the presence of other content.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Does Joe Rogan have "messages"? I thought his whole thing was
| to be a neutral place for interesting conversations.
|
| If he's trying to deliver specific messages now, that would
| certainly affect who wants to listen to him.
| tehalex wrote:
| I have no interested in listening and I've thought about
| canceling spotify for how hard they push the podcast with no way
| to hide it.
| mastrsushi wrote:
| "Mickey Mouse Data Analytics: The article"
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-25 23:00 UTC)