General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJon Stewart sides with Joe Rogan as more artists leave Spotify: 'This overreaction is a mistake'
Im more worried about the algorithm of misinformation than the purveyor of misinformation, he added. Misinformation will always be out there, but if the algorithm drives people further and further down the rabbit hole, the algorithm is the amplifier and the catalyst of extremism.
i don't know , he made some good points, but then again , i think it is waste of money anyway when you can steal music for free.
hlthe2b
(105,731 posts)PortTack
(34,248 posts)Cha
(304,047 posts)his view ot the "Purveyor of MISinformation".. imo
durablend
(7,771 posts)"If we just try to UNDERSTAND them, maybe we can change things"
Have you been sleeping the past half decade Jon?
iemanja
(54,435 posts)I seem to remember some early anti-vaxx comments.
rogue emissary
(3,203 posts)Zeitghost
(4,259 posts)Has gained quite a bit of credibility. It's not proven, but it seems to be a reasonable option for the origin of the pandemic.
Which goes to show the short sighted foolishness of these social media censorship policies. A year ago you could get banned from platforms for talking about the lab leak hypothesis, now it is being discussed by serious scientists as a credible theory.
shrike3
(5,370 posts)There are bats here in the U.S., and we don't get viruses from them. Um -- different species of bats? I saw that whole rant of his and was not impressed. Even Colbert looked askance.
randr
(12,462 posts)The artist loses. If you love music enough to steal for it you should be willing to show respect to the artist that created it.
Corgigal
(9,292 posts)Like I was trying to tell my adult kids, Im paying for Showtime because I want the people who made, acted and filmed Dexter to be paid.
Its almost a foreign concept to people now. Let artists earn a living, please.
shrike3
(5,370 posts)The attitude, at all levels, is "look at the exposure you'll get."
A songwriter I know crowed about finally making a few bucks on Spotify. He said, "I'm just glad my songs are heard." I said, "If you're fine with it, okay. But it's my opinion that artists should be paid."
I
Cuthbert Allgood
(5,160 posts)It takes a ridiculous amount of plays of a song for them to get a paltry sum. They get like $0.003 per stream.
lame54
(36,504 posts)Approx: $4000
Mosby
(17,218 posts)Just saying, I don't agree with "stealing" songs. But the whole industry is f-ed up.
catsudon
(868 posts)they practically give it out for free from youtubes, and other 'free' social media.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Yes, you can. Why should you?
BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)Pandemics are deadly, this one sure is and so yea, people can overreact and civil liberties are essential to a functioning gov.
What I saw was one artist said, its me or Rogan, you can't have both. Would I have put it that way? No. It is better to just leave a platform that allows for lies, and not only that but Rogan is paid 100 million because Spotify determined he is a GREAT INFLUENCER. They just don't care about why....at least not until they began losing revenue.
Why is any artist not free to disassociate with a liar? Rogan has referred to himself as a moron too...take him at his word.
WhiskeyGrinder
(23,610 posts)Vinca
(50,849 posts)and ultimately killing people is not acceptable. It doesn't matter if it's Spotify or Faux news. Some media purveyors will allow anything to turn a buck and that's exactly what Spotify is doing.
Scrivener7
(52,260 posts)UTUSN
(72,156 posts)Like when Tweety and RUSSERT came from being branded as strong Democrats while active in politics, and we cheered them into media as ours, but in their media career became, or showed themselves to be at first "pragmatic" but then openly sided too much with Shrub and retroactively with RAYGUN, but continued to trade off of carrying the "Democratic" label, long after they had betrayed it too much and too often.
I remember how, after many here were clear about Tweety's perfidy, there would pop up defenders, who clearly had not kept up with his changes.
No way do I call STEWART a wingnut, certainly not in the Tweety/RUSSERT stage, but, something in the Third Way or collaborator class. I'll admit to having had confusion about him for a time: First, I accepted and liked him as a full Lib in those early years when he almost exclusively skewered wingnuts, but then came his Crossfire episode, then his Glen BecKKK matching rally, then his reaching out to O'LOOFAH, and I had enough of my confusion and of giving him the benefit of my doubt. No, not a wingnut, but something like Third Way or No Labels or collaborator.
To his fans who will rain outrage on me here, it's been done here before, so just don't. You can't change my mind and I can't change yours. I have my space and you yours.
lame54
(36,504 posts)Extremely entertaining
Not overly political except for his not great final speech
He struggled with what he wanted to say
But it was fun and the Yuge crowd had a great time
UTUSN
(72,156 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 4, 2022, 08:17 PM - Edit history (1)
"Not overtly political" - that's the problem and back then the word, both about his rally and BecKKK's, was that both sets of their fans were disappointed for not flying the flag for their fan bases.
BecKKK had hyped it as bringing the country together, healing the great divide. And STEWART, while not exactly saying the same thing, followed suit.
*******That's the point: Both of them were KNOWN for their political bent. And the separate fan bases wanted it as a clarion call, respectively.
Clearly, BecKKK's pseudo-religious delusion was utterly transparent as snake oil. And very soon afterward he was back at his same b.s.
STEWART did a namby-pamby version - with the MythBuster nerds, Hippie Dippy blowing bubbles, and FeelGoodism, semi-Renaissance Fair.
*** O.K., if somebody wants/likes entertainment for entertainment's sake, fine for them. It's not what some of us political junkies were looking for from STEWART. I mean, everybody knows BecKKK is a delusional fraud, no surprise there.
But STEWART was known for his *skewering*, so that's what I would expect and want from him. A DUer said about Tweety, "WHEN he's on our side, there's nobody better," and I'd halfway echo that about STEWART, not the part of "nobody's better" because that's what I'd say about COLBERT.
*** Now here's where I'll dig myself deeper, because back at the time, MAHER said to and about the STEWART rally, "If you're going to have a rally it needs to be *ABOUT* something." --- I say, digging deeper, because MAHER is on a shit list with a tight coterie here.
This is the first time I've seen the take that STEWART's rally was great entertainment and fun. As I saw the faces in the crowd while the hippy dippy stuff was going on, all I saw was: DISAPPOINTMENT, maybe even crestfallen.
*** Now to dig myself even deeper, as this dispute has played out here before, I'll say that COLBERT obviously has a long, personal history with STEWART and will probably never break that bond, but if COLBERT had put on that rally it would have been very clear and ABOUT politics.
The rest of my list against STEWART stands for me and I don't care what he says about anything, even if little bits might be a dig or two against wingnuts, any more than I care about Joe LIEBERMAN.
When I want pure entertainment for entertainment's sake I'll look at things dedicated to that. No harm no foul in my post Replying here. Cheers!
lame54
(36,504 posts)It means 2 bald scientists
UTUSN
(72,156 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 4, 2022, 08:18 PM - Edit history (2)
And here's more room for me digging my hole deeper - I never liked CARLIN or COSBY. both of whom were idolized by my true Hippie pals back in the '70s, which is actually past the true Hippie days.
lame54
(36,504 posts)We can put an outhouse on it
UTUSN
(72,156 posts)But will use up the last defense - a *grammar* barb: "Your (possessive), not "You're" (contraction for you-are)!1
UTUSN
(72,156 posts)I think that "hippy" would refer to wide hips (adjective), while the "-ie" form (noun) is for the Middle Class semi-rebels, no?
I am in the process of correcting it everywhere I mentioned it. I sense we had a good time, no hard feelings!
Mosby
(17,218 posts)Is he referring to FB? What does Spotify have to do with it?
Dr. Strange
(25,992 posts)Based on your listening history, they'll have a list of songs/podcasts that you might like.
lame54
(36,504 posts)turbinetree
(25,177 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(102,279 posts)and so try to get people to listen, to recoup their money via ads, or getting subscriptions on the basis that they give access to Rogan and his misinformation. They are going to encourage any subscriber to listen to Rogan, "driving them further down the rabbit hole".
So, unless there's been some new development I'm unaware of, I can't see what the "overreaction" is. Some artists have said "I don't want to associate with Spotify and its employment of Rogan and his misinformation." Why is that "overreaction"? It's not like they're making it any harder for someone to listen to Rogan.
It seems to me Stewart is wrong in all ways. Disappointing.
PTWB
(4,131 posts)The sheer convenience, selection and affordability offered by the giant streaming services is too great a value. "Free" pirating of music isn't free when you calculate how much time it costs you to locate, download, manage, and store that music.
cinematicdiversions
(1,969 posts)Of downloading 47k songs.
Jose Garcia
(2,791 posts)meadowlander
(4,671 posts)Here's the actual video for context.
I actually agree with him. Neil Young should have kept his content on Spotify and written a great song about why Rogan is wrong instead of trying to use his clout to silence him. What has that accomplished except making more people aware of Joe Rogan? You can't run a platform where the content is decided by what the richest and most influential people think should be allowed as public discourse or otherwise they will take their ball and go home.
We're all posting on an internet full of some of the vilest thoughts and sentiments constructed by the human brain but the solution isn't to refuse to post on the internet. It's to engage the real people we know so they don't feel compelled to buy into the rubbish.
muriel_volestrangler
(102,279 posts)Well, that needs some explaining from you.
He should "write a great song". Well, if he did that, then it would have a similar effect to him saying "I won't partner with Spotify, since they spread disinformation for profit, with Rogan". But reach a far smaller audience than those who have heard the news stories about Spotify.
"Trying to use his clout to silence him" - well, it wouldn't be "silencing him", it would be "not enabling him to profit from killing people". Rogan still gets to help people to die, but Young and others don't partner with his partner in this dangerous bullshit.
"What has that accomplished except making more people aware of Joe Rogan?" That Rogan and Spotify are spreading deadly BS is something that should be widely known. Even Spotify tried to do something to look better by linking to some real facts about Covid alongside Rogan's crap.
"You can't run a platform where the content is decided by what the richest and most influential people think should be allowed as public discourse or otherwise they will take their ball and go home." - the richest and most influential person here is Rogan, with that $100 million.
"We're all posting on an internet full of some of the vilest thoughts and sentiments constructed by the human brain but the solution isn't to refuse to post on the internet. " I don't think you understand the difference between "the internet" and "business contracts between Young and Spotify, and Rogan and Spotify". I'm not sure you understand what the internet is, for that matter.
meadowlander
(4,671 posts)Yes. I think Neil Young has a contract with Spotify and Joe Rogan has a contract with Spotify and the one thing has nothing to do with the other any more than Stephen Colbert is on Comcast and Fox News is on Comcast therefore, what, Stephen Colbert should set up his own cable company until Comcast agrees to drop Fox?
We're in the situation we're in because, instead of speaking to the argument that the other person is making, we insist on fragmenting into smaller and smaller echo chambers until we reach a circle where everyone agrees with us about everything.
Neil Young could have objected to what Joe Rogan was saying without threatening to pull his catalogue and Spotify may well have done the same thing adding content warnings. He could have gotten a group of celebrities together to petition Spotify to change its policy on dangerous content and that could have been even more effective. Or he could have encouraged his fans to put together a petition.
We don't know. Because he issued a public ultimatum instead and if Spotify had agreed then they would be put in the position of becoming the content police every time one celebrity has a problem with another. Ariana Grande decides she can't be on Spotify because it's inconsistent with her vegan values to be on the same platform as Weird Al Yankovich's song about Spam? Justin Bieber threatens to pull his catalogue unless Spotify pulls Black Sabbath? No more Marilyn Manson songs because Taylor Swift thinks they promote school shootings?
This is not how you get social progress done.
muriel_volestrangler
(102,279 posts)people making arguments about what is best for society. It's a capitalist venture, it does what it does based on what makes it profit. People, including famous ones, had already criticized Spotify for promoting Rogan, and they had done fuck all apart from count the money as it came back to them. It takes the loss of a revenue stream for them to pay attention. By some arguments, that's the only way they can legally act, since they are obliged to maximize profit for shareholders.
The point about Rogan content is that it contributes to death. There have been perhaps 200,000 preventable deaths in the USA this year, largely because of an amazing death cult, promoted by Republicans and Rogan. You think it's about popstars' feelings, and Spotify would be happy to have a chat with Rogan, and Rogan would be happy to change his ways because people say he's an idiot.
Your slippery slope arguments are ridiculous, and a poor attempt at trivializing the death cult.
budkin
(6,849 posts)He's no longer relevant and that has to sting.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)FreepFryer
(7,079 posts)We can walk and chew gum at the same time. When he leads a campaign against the algorithm, we will focus on that too.
No more enabling of purveyors of deadly misinformation.
struggle4progress
(119,682 posts)BY RYAN GAJEWSKI
FEBRUARY 4, 2022 10:16PM
India Arie is delving further into her ire over Joe Rogans Spotify presence by sharing resurfaced footage to social media that appears to show Rogan previously using the N-word.
Arie wrote via Instagram on Monday that she would be joining Neil Young and other artists in walking away from Spotify by asking for her music and podcasts to be pulled from the popular streaming service. At the time, Arie explained that she finds Rogan problematic for reasons other than his Covid interviews, adding, For me its also his language around race ...
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/india-arie-joe-rogan-n-word-spotify-battle-1235087663/
Owl
(3,684 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(102,279 posts)Link to tweet
"With all due respect to Jon Stewart, the name I hear most often when a parent or patient tells me where they heard something that makes them not want the Covid vaccine is the Spotify podcaster, so Im not inclined to contribute to the profits of the company that pays him."
BootinUp
(48,613 posts)The world is what we make it. How about some of that.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Is Jon Stewart following Dennis Miller's career path into a black hole of irrelevance and obscurity?
obamanut2012
(27,689 posts)I have loathed Maher for years, and it's really disappointing to see Stewart act like this, too.