Not the GP, but yes, definitely. If a store or brand has collaborations with the wrong people etc., that's definitely a reason to not shop there. I don't find Joe Rogan terrible enough to cancel my spotify subscription, but if they started collaborating with say Alex Jones, I'd find another streaming service in a heartbeat.
Yes, which is one reason I dislike Rogan. However, Spotify and Jones aren't in direct business (making money off their business deal together). I'm fine with Spotify and Rogan doing business.
It's not that I go around worrying about what's said in every song and podcast on Spotify, it's rather whether I agree with Spotify's business practices or not. I wish Spotify told Rogan to stop having conspiracy theorists on his show (unless they are critically exposed), but I don't consider Alex Jones as being a part of Spotify's business model because he is a guest in one of their pods.
What if they were promoting a company that funds misleading nutrition research to fool people into thinking sugar is less harmful, leading to countless early deaths and diabetes?
What about a company that's the largest plastic polluter in the world, that also lobbies to kill regulation to reduce plastic pollution? It's hard to know the full extent of the harm microplastics cause the ecosystem, but it's unlikely to be small.
How far do you have to drive to find a supermarket that doesn't sell Coca-Cola? Or is that not worth the same level of condemnation as interviewing the wrong person?
> How far do you have to drive to find a supermarket that doesn't sell Coca-Cola?
Sounds like you've identified the key difference on your own?
Spotify can be avoided. Groceries largely cannot.
(There's also a difference in revenue model. You can't subscribe to Spotify without part of that money going to Rogan. You can skip Coca-Cola products at the grocery store and ensure the companies you don't like see $0 from you.)
> You can't subscribe to Spotify without part of that money going to Rogan.
Can't you? Rogan's compensation isn't based on Spotify's total profits, and if you don't listen to him, you won't be contributing to his audience size either, and Spotify will be able to see that in their metrics. If tomorrow Spotify gains 100 million new users, that then never listen to a single Rogan episode, how would that increase Rogan's compensation?
Are you genuinely unable to see the difference between the two revenue models? I'm really not all that interested in absurd hypotheticals.
If I buy a Coke at my grocery store, Coke's getting some of that money. If I buy a Pepsi, Coke gets none of that. I can boycott specific companies while still buying groceries, and again, opting out of food is an issue.
If Rogan were an optional premium paid add-on channel on Spotify, the two would be far more comparable.
And if you shop at a grocery store, your money goes to pay their expenses. One of those expenses if stocking Coca-Cola. See how easy it is to make it seem like you contribute to something if you join all capital flows into one big pool?
You have to explain how Rogan would get more money if you subscribe to Spotify, than if you didn't subscribe.
How far do you have to drive to find a supermarket that doesn't sell Coca-Cola? Or is that not worth the same level of condemnation as interviewing the wrong person?
Everybody gets to choose what they are and are not willing to support with their money. Some things I am willing to compromise to avoid; other things I am not. Extremely strange to me how many of you want to perform these weird mental gymnastics to suggest that people should be ashamed of not handing their money over to people or causes they disagree with.
There's a bit of difference between "my grocery store sells seaweed snacks and I don't like them" and "this company gave $100M to someone problematic".
> God forbid someone has an opinion different from you...
My opinion is that Rogan is problematic.
You needn't share it, but you appear to endorse my right to hold that opinion, while simultaneously telling me to "get the fuck out"? I'm somewhat confused.
Out of pure curiosity, what's wrong with him? I don't feel his vibe so I never got into listening to him, but I was under impression he's popular and quite liked.
I find this particularly problematic when he's having "provocative" folks on; it gives them an enormous platform, and one that allows them to get Rogan to nod along where another interviewer might push back on readily debunkable things. We've substantial research indicating deplatforming folks like Alex Jones is effective at reducing the impact of their misinformation. (https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-bans-...)
It's really ironic that you are backing up your claims for "substantial research" with links to Vice. The first one is literally just a hitpiece on Elon Musk. The second one's reasoning, built upon a lot of anecdotes, basically goes like this: Reddit banned deepfakes, and subsequently there were no more deepfakes on Reddit, so that's proof that it worked! I can't see it anymore in my bubble so it must be gone!
The first is an example of where Rogan doesn't push subjects and takes an overly credulous line of interviewing. A more recent example is him spreading the "antifa is starting fires" bullshit, which he later had to walk back.
Going as far as boycotting Rogan because he's not being critical enough of his guests seems pretty dumb to me. It's a mainstream podcast, and he has high profile guests. No wonder he's not going to grill them.
As to the paper, I think you can poke a lot of holes in it. For example, AFAICT they found that hate speech went down, measured via the frequency of words commonly used within these subreddits. Certainly much of the decline is then attributable to the subreddit's subculture getting killed, and taking with it their slang words. It might just be that other words are in fashion now. And it's not a given that this even generalizes from deplatforming subreddits to deplatforming individuals.
So I still think it's a stretch to call it substantial research, but without getting hung up in any more details, I think the fundamental effectiveness issue with deplatforming is that by taking away the platform, you don't change people's opinions. You just won't see them talk about it anymore, and that's you as in you, the one who banned them, and no one else. They'll still be out there. It's just that now, you're sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalala (this is also mentioned in the paper). See the democrats losing to Trump in 2016 even though basically the whole mainstream media demonized him and his supporters.
It might reduce the impact of THEIR misinformation, but... I know a guy who loved Alex Jones (sigh) and he's now just reposting stuff by the likes of "The HighWire with Del Bigtree" instead, who is (unfortunately?) a LOT more convincing (has misinformation... evolved?)
Yes, he has one of the most popular podcasts in the world. But if you are involved in particular political flavors, you might deem him as "problematic" because he hosts guests who you also deem so, even though objectively speaking, his guests are generally very diverse and his own political opinions are pretty mainstream.
It's like people's feelings on Ben Shapiro. If you are center or right, he seems like a smart young feller. If you are sufficiently left, you can't stand him and he seems detestable.
We can barely agree on 2+2=4 sort of stuff; it should be quite clear that "so and so is problematic" is a matter of opinion likely to be disputed by some.
I don/t think the supermarket is a good example, but if a branch company made a product that i see as harmless, i would stop buying from all the other branch. Kinda hard to do grocery shopping without Nestlé and Lactalis, but i somehow manage.
I wouldn't, but realistically all supermarkets sell so many products that you are bound to find something you object to, if only in the book or newspaper stand.
You sound like you've never heard of boycotting. Yes, that what you described is how boycotting works. It's a very common thing. It ranges from civil rights activists boycotting segregated buses to religious conservatives boycotting stores that sell birth control/plan B to people using lyft instead of uber because of all the issues at uber. One of my friends refused to buy milk from Oberweis, a dairy company in the Chicago area, because they discriminated against polish immigrants like his grandparents way back when, so his family had decided to boycott them forever. This is not some sort of new concept.
Unfortunately the longer time passes, Rogan is pro and against and in between on everything. He's been much more receptive to right leaning perspectives and more critical to extreme left, but also much less critical to the extreme right and much less tolerant of left leaning. Its been incredibly disappointing that he has gotten so out of touch with the style and approach that gained him his podcast prestige.
Sure, though his position hasn't changed much on trans. I've always agreed with him that people who switch genders shouldn't be treated equally when it comes to contact sports like UFC. He's just been more distasteful about discussing it over time IMO.
If I had to sum up how Rogan has changed, he reminds me of many older men who just start to become aholes to everyone and everything, and believe that everything always deserves criticism while rarely deserving to be taken seriously. Though age is a factor, I think his FU money and success has completely gotten to his head.
I was a fan for years from about episode 50, but rarely listen/watch now. His exclusivity is not a factor keeping me subscribed if I consider leaving Spotify in the future.
> he reminds me of many older men who just start to become aholes to everyone and everything
This smacks of ageism AND sexism, all at once! Congratulations, you've violated your own morality code. And you were SO close to the -ism hat trick, had you only referred to him as an "older white man" ;)
It took a while for gay marriage to become broadly accepted. Trans is fighting the same battle now. He's a very typical older cismale and this population segment is, by and large, just not going to "get it" yet.
I don't think it's just confined to white older men, rather old men generally as I stated. Not an absolute either, as I stated "many" and not "all". I'm not going to pretend that the majority of progressive minds are concentrated in the older populace, because constantly I find life experience to demonstrate otherwise.
I'm not sure what there is to "get" about trans. I think everyone deserves to be treated with decency and respect, while also believing there is plenty to discuss about the moral and ethical aspects of hormone treatment (particularly during childhood), genderless bathrooms, etc.
> I'm not sure what there is to "get" about trans.
There are questions that are easy to answer that you have touched on such as bathrooms (just make them all solo and genderless), and decency/respect (give it to everyone, obviously).
There are also FAR more difficult questions to answer such as, how to treat the gender separation in sports and where trans fits in there “fairly”? What to do if there is post-surgery regret? Why can a person consent to a drastic and permanent gender/sex change operation (the effects of some hormones at certain ages is irreversible) while being unable to consent to sex itself? (this is not an appeal to pedophilia as much as it is one of non-hypocrisy).
> He's been much more receptive to right leaning perspectives and more critical to extreme left, but also much less critical to the extreme right and much less tolerant of left leaning.
So your argument is basically "this person is somewhere else on the political spectrum than I am, therefore he must be cancelled from Spotify"?
So, I didn't say anything about cancelling Rogan from Spotify. I think Spotify overspent on him but I could care less that they did.
And my argument is that Rogan used to lean left in his own views, but was tolerant overall for the majority of the bell curve. Now, Rogan has shifted rightward personally, but has abandoned giving due time and thought to much of the left side of the bell curve. He's more narrow minded and quick to criticize what were previously ideas and arguments that deserved to be taken seriously (and still do).
Except that there is nothing wrong with Joe Rogan. Not liking someone (or one of their guests) is a really terrible and irrational reason to not use an entire platform.
Feeling that a platform invests in or promotes dangerous or harmful content is a totally valid reason to want to use that platform less, or to stop giving them money. Really super strange that you don’t immediately see that.
Please show me where Rogan promotes "dangerous or harmful content". Also show how mere information can be harmful. Reading "Mein Kampf" won't turn me into a Nazi, but it might make me understand Nazism better.
