Oh look a troll!!
Should this thread not be closed? Or is boards.ie now supporting covid misinformation?
Megan and Harry are "concerned" over Covid misinformation on Spotify but are committed to continuing their $25 million content deal 🤣😃😂
Such heros, thank you...😁
I've heard Old media bandied about alot but what is new media- a single person running a website? The media new or old was of course going to report about Neil Youngs ultimatum against the most popular podcaster in the world. That is news! Joe did say that young people don't need the vaccine, but should get it. I think he was right when he said that, that it wasn't a threat to their overall health but should have said this would have a knock on effect that more unvaccinated young people would end up in hospital and if they became overwhelmed there would be unnecessary deaths.
Joe will continue to have guests with fringe views on his podcast, I'm sure of this. That is what makes him so popular and makes Spotify a lot of money.
Nail on the head fella
It's an orchestrated attempt to deplatform him from Spotify. It's hugely disingenuous and without doubt old media broadcasting , which is failing ion viwership miserably because they are simply NOT trusted, is very much a huge part of it. They being the largest purveyors of mis/disinformation on the planet without a shred of doubt.
Now, Rogan could easily take the 100 million if that happens (I believe he has some clause in his Spotify contract) and establish his own platform. But with the recent example of the cartel power of big tech in lockstep with big govt, he could probably find it very difficult to host. This is the state of what has been accepted by quite a lot of people (no idea if it's the majority or not) which is incredibly bad for everyone.
I've enjoyed a lot of Rogan's conversations and turned off quite a lot more that I would have had no interest in. Nothing he has broadcast is a 'perilous calamity for the public' - I reject the weak, simplistic cry of 'safe spaces' from speech and everything else which doesn't incite actual violence.
When did grown adults become such absolute weak ars*holes?
That is a logistical issue really. I am content to hear two sides on any debate that is current (as opposed to the analogy to creationism for example which is to my mind settled). I think it a little bit much to expect a podcast to bring on representative proportions in that way. Not to mention insanely boring. In your example to be "fair" there would have to be 1 guy followed by 19 others? Who would bother sitting down listening to 19*3 hours worth of the same material over and over?
I would be happy to hear one response. For example one of the Doctors in the "controversy" at the moment said that (quoting from memory here so sorry if I make a balls of it) the delivery lipids of the vaccine did not stay in the muscle where it was expected they will stay but actually travel around the body and accumulate specifically in the brain and the ovaries (for those who have the latter). And this might explain "brain fog" and "period alteration" respectively. So there we have a hypothesis and a mechanism. That's good science so far.
That is interesting and I have not yet looked into that claim myself. I do not need to hear 19 guys rebut this claim. 1 would do.
Joe is not a public service broadcaster. I’ve watched a good few Joe Rogan interviews on YouTube down the years some of them were excellent and others I’ve turned off after 5 mins, Why can’t people make up their own minds about these subjects. Without needing to have them censored. He has said now he will aim for more balance so I think that’s fair enough.
I've seen a couple of heads on facebook start posting Joe Rogan videos on facebook over the last year, generally with rants about masks and the lockdown or espousing the need for Ivermectin to be a treatment. I got berated for trusting WHO and the CDC when I posted an article in relation to Covid. Can't be dealing with that scutter at all. Ended up deactivating my facebook account.
I mean if 95% of experts agree on something and 5% don't, and Joe interviews 3 of the 5% and 1 of the 95%(*), then there's an unbalance there.
(*) - numbers just made up to illustrate a point, not actually representative of recent guests.
I must say Neil Young leaving, or rather being pushed off the platform has been a bit of an education to me in terms of what artists earn on the different streaming services - nearly all the major streamers give better rates than Spotify. It takes on average 350 listens on Spotify for an artist to earn one dollar - which is even more painful when contrasted against the rumoured $100 million Rogan got. It's something I should have looked at a bit more closely before tbh. I'm not interested in the podcast side of things and 3 or 4 hours of Joe and guests rambling holds no interest to me so I'm moving on to Tidal.
Not quite as useful an analogy as it might seem given that there is absolutely no evidence for creationism and that debate has essentially been settled decades ago for anyone but a few cranks who can not let go.
That is not quite the same thing as open questions about emergent technologies and viruses and what is in many ways an entirely new experience for our species.
Isn't that a bit like saying that US schools that teach Creationism alongside Evolution are doing a fine job? By giving a platform to cranks to make their case, a percentage of the audience is going to think this has equal weight and equal validity to scientific fact.
Does he not do both though? As I said he had Sanjay on who expressed mostly consensus views. Then he has someone on who does not express consensus views and suddenly he is being accused of going out of his way to do the latter. People ignore when he does the former.
Just like when he had someone on who made an anti meat documentary on Netflix. "Game Changers" wasn't it? After having the guy on supporting that Docu and the points in it - he then had on someone to debunk it (Chris Kresser if memory serves?).
He will have someone on spouting all kinds of crap about UFOs. He will then have Neil DeGrasse Tyson on doing the opposite.
So nah - not really buying the "picking guests just to build more audience" narrative to be honest. He claims to bring on guests that interest him personally - and I have watched enough of his stuff to take him at his word on this.
Remember the recent controversy (if you can call a few loud mouths on twitter a controversey but it is these days I guess) is about two guests. Out of 1770 podcasts. Most of whom go under the raider - not noticed at all - and are from an array of backgrounds and topics.
But 2 guests are contentious and suddenly there is a whole narrative about what his agendas and ideas must be.
He's chasing an audience. A bigger audience means more money and influence (and success) for him. I guess he's going to get more of an audience from having controversial/wrong people on the show than having shall we say scientifically orthodox people come on and state the facts.
^ Hehe. The funny thing about that is - the person I have heard say you should never take anything Joe Rogan says seriously because he is a meat head and doesn't know much - more than any other person I have ever heard say it - is Rogan himself.
He is successful and has a platform. That is enough to make people's responses to his minor misdemeanors turn disproportionate.
Good response from Joe.
I've rarely seen him talking and find it funny matching his voice to that head.
I can't believe the crap he gets. It's an unreal pile on. He's never been anything but straight up. I'm probably one of his dopes that laps anything up. I'm a ratlicker 🤣
Is it fair to say he goes out of his way to get guests that go against the current consensus? Or would it be fairer to say that - second hand - many people only hear about the guests that do so?
For example how many of the articles moaning about the two Drs he had on - also go out of their way to mention the sanjay gupta interview? I haven't read more than 5 articles on this matter myself but only 1 of them mentioned sanjay gupta.
This is a great example of why putting your faith in an individual is dangerous. People change, or people turn out to be something other than you thought. Joe Rogan may be bringing millions of listeners with him on his journey away from science and facts, and into harmful fringe beliefs.
If you are going to trust anything, trust the process of science - a process that generally treats findings as provisional until we have a better explanation, and keeps looking for that better explanation. It doesn't rely on individual people who can lead you astray. In fact, there's a known phenomenon called 'Nobel Disease' where individual scientists, Nobel Prize winners and hugely accomplished in their own field, go on to embrace fringe/lunatic positions in other areas. This hopefully demonstrates that it's the process of science that produces useful results, rather than the individuals working in the process.
The trouble isn't people taking advice from Joe Rogan, it's taking advice from Joe Rogan's guests, because Rogan lately seems to have been going out of his way to interview people whose opinion go against the scientific consensus and tie in with Rogan's own beliefs and "research" on the subject, and then he doesn't challenge or question (and more importantly, can't question/challenge) their opinions, and those are the viewpoints that is put out to Rogan's listeners. And a lot of the time people will believe that which goes against the consensus more so because it goes against the consensus, as it makes them feel smarter. And I include Rogan himself in that. He seems to be purposefully looking for things which go against the grain and buying into it completely simply because it means he's "done his own research".
He used to interview people who were experts in their field, fields he was interested in, and just have conversations with them about it. Now he seems to be trying to find "experts" who can explain what he already believes anyway and then doesn't challenge them on anything.
What - someone who defends Spotify’s decision and criticises a poster for petty rudeness?
Ooh burn!
The point stands though. Some people lack the intelligence or education to be able to tell whether they are listening to an intelligent person or intelligent discussion. I'm often struck by this when watching a TV show where someone has tried to write a very intelligent character - unfortunately, it's more or less impossible for someone to write a character smarter than they are themselves. It's the same principle in reverse.
So are you. I bet I listen to Rogan as little as you do.
You’re exactly the type of person I’d expect to find in a Joe Rogan thread.
"So and so is a dumb persons idead of a smart person" is a dumb persons idea of a smart dismissal
Which medical quack did he have one? Think before you answer, there's a good chap.
You can say whatever facts you wish because one day it may be true.
Something that those who want Rogan dropped by Spotify likely will fail to realise is that by being on a mainstream platform, he has been forced into giving misinformation warnings, challenging his guests better and having on more varied guests. That would not have happened if he’d been summarily dropped and picked up by some platform with a libertarian ethos.
Haha, It's amazing how they can't figure out how to cancel their Spotify account themselves and need to ask about it publicly. It's not hard. It's almost like they are virtue signaling.
Those comments I've seen attributed to Neil Young about homosexuality over the years are shocking if true.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c4bb4de17c3fd87110c024c5ad5bd958.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/8078e6b81295c08b3df3e770f66e931c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b605825002726fa398519aca553ff0db.svg)
