back
973 comments
I like the JRE. I like that he listens to everyone and engages with them. The world could do with more of that rather than this tribalism shit.

On one of his recent podcasts, he supports fox news keeping it's guests from specific no-no topics because they don't want to loose their credibility.

The irony, obviously, being that Joe should also keep his guests and himself away from certain no-no topics. That's the thing though. Joe doesn't see himself as a credible news source, a voice of a movement, or any of those other things because accuse him of. It's mainly just him hanging out with his buddies smoke'n (sometimes literally) and joke'n.

That's the entertaining and appeal of the show.

Edit

It's my fault for grouping them into the same sentence, but I didn't claim (or mean to) that his show is just junk entertainment because it's just people talking. My claim is that's the appeal of the format.

He obviously has credible and knowledgeable guests on his show. I said Joe doesn't see himself as a news source or a voice of a movement. Martial arts, working out, and DMT, however, yes he probably thinks of himself as someone to take advice from there.

I think this hits at the heart of the issue though - you don't get to, as a public figure, decide whether or not you are "the voice of a movement". In mass media today, influencers and other people of note who don't have advanced degrees should be doing their research - from credible sources - so they're not spouting inaccuracies and falsehoods to their followers.

Joe Rogan doesn't need to do these things if he's just "hanging out with his buddies smoke'n" but he also doesn't have an obligation to have provocateurs and hacks like robert malone or ben shapiro on his show. He does it because he knows his fanbase will listen to it, ingest the information, and then speak it as fact to their friends and family - and THAT is where the danger comes in. Furthermore, he also knows that parts of his fanbase will go wild to see their fringe views espoused by a guest on their favorite podcast, without Joe challenging them to back their claims up with facts. I'm sure he also knows that his listeners skew young and male, and impressionable young men have been radicalized to a dangerous degree on the internet. Having the same views on his podcast as conspiracy theory sites, for example, will undoubtedly make it easier for the bad actors running these sites to radicalize JRE listeners (who will then, of course, become a part of the fanbase that loves when their theories are given time on his show in some perverse feedback loop).

He has also inked a deal with the largest music streaming service in the world for more money than any of us will see in our entire lives - at that point I don't think you can even say he's just "hanging out" any more. It's facetious at best, and wilfully negligent at worst, to assume that no one thinks of him as an authority figure, because even if he's playing the everyman character his guests profess to be authority figures in their fields. If he doesn't seriously challenge their false claims or ask for evidence from credible sources, he's doing his listeners a disservice.

> That's the thing though. Joe doesn't see himself as a credible news source, a voice of a movement, or any of those other things because accuse him of

When you have an audience numbering in the millions, and have a long term presence (unlike old school radio), you are a news source, whether you like it or not.

And you have a responsibility to be careful with your words, whether you want it or not.

In this age of boundless social media, where what is true, what is false and what is mis-leading is non-existent, it is pertinent for people like JRE to absolutely not go into topic they don't know or knowledgeable about.

I would really like to see him bring on Dr. Fauci, and have a good listen to him.

While that is true about Joe and the show that doesn't completely paint the whole picture either. Actually it really leaves out the key part of the whole picture.

Irregardless of what Joe says about himself and the show being nothing more than a bunch of idiotic guys talking, the truth of the matter is he does have credible and subject matter experts come on his show and talk and give their viewpoint on their area of expertise.

However when those experts come on and they go against the MSM narrative then the focus becomes about Joe and his silly tactics as a way to dismiss or downplay the counter views for some.

Does he really "Listen to everyone"? Or does he give more of a platform to the more outlandish while not really getting scientists in?

You can claim he giving another side to the "Mainstream media", but does he give in depth interviews with scientists who are little more than quotes in the media? or is he more focused on giving the "Other side"

Eg, he just had that idiot Peterson spouting climate rubbish, has he had credible climate scientists on his show?

Joe Rogan isn't as fair and balanced with his guests as you're giving him credit for. He doesn't equally listen to "everyone" or have "everyone" on his show. When was the last time Joe had a pro-vaccine expert on his show to ask them about the real science of vaccines? It doesn't happen.

Edit: Apparently he had Peter Attila on who is pro-vaccine, but that's hardly a leading expert on the topic, and there's still a clear bias in the guests Joe invites to his show.

> It's mainly just him hanging out with his buddies smoke'n (sometimes literally) and joke'n.

> That's the entertaining and appeal of the show.

Facebook's press releases talk just like that. They also pretend to be "neutral".

But Rogan, Facebook and Spotify made choices with repercussions and consequences. They just don't want to bear responsibility/accountability for those consequences.

And, no, I don't use both Facebook or Spotify.

Agreed.

The corporate media attacks on him make no sense to me.

It's a freaking podcast where he talks about sports, hunting, UFOs, the supernatural, comedians, ai, and yes conspiracy theory.

I enjoy the variety and the wild topics.

Ironic because Fox News has zero credibility. Their prime time anchor Tucker Carlson won against slander charges in court by arguing that he does not state actual facts and instead engages in exaggeration and non-literal commentary. They are clearly a mouthpiece for one of two sides, like other “news” organizations.

And since the beginning of Covid Joe Rogan has stopped being just a dude who hangs out and smokes with his buddies, something I used to love about the show. He is constantly and consistently political, making medical claims and other kinds of claims that are nonsensical. He’s started favoring certain types of guests, and avoiding the friends who call him out.

I used to argue vehemently that free speech can be infringed upon under no circumstance. I still will. But now I see the “other side” more clearly, that is, where is the line when someone has one of the largest platforms in the world and uses it to spread dangerous misinformation? He’s way past just some dude. I have friends who take what he says as gospel, because they want to learn how to be men and Joe is a man’s man. At the same time, he does make good arguments in favor of discourse, hearing different viewpoints, etc. so how do we handle this?

Joe Rogan is a useful idiot for grifters who know that he won't seriously challenge them for what they're saying under the guise of "hey it's just fun" and "hey I'm just letting them say their piece." He is a perhaps a good conversationalist for engaging with and listening to his guests, but he is a poor interviewer and, unless he's in on the con, a poor judge of character.
My take on this this is it has nothing to do with Joe Rogan, Neil Young, or Spotify.

The mainstream media push against podcasting is really a fight to hold for their power.

People who think they have the power to tell people "what's going on" are annoyed that a mere "podcaster" can also do the same nowadays. It's pretty interesting when you start to notice the derogatory tone mainstream-media celebrities use when talking about podcasts. The idea that some rando (in their mind) can just skirt the whole path they suffered through to get where they are, and have enough power to have their say and affect people's mind. People in this group include people like Don Lemon, Chris Cuomo, Matt Lauer, Jake Tapper, etc...

Those television journalists have it in their mind that they're the authority, and their authority is being challenged now by the fact that a podcaster is becoming more and more of a big-shot.

It's pretty much the same push initially against youtube, social-media, and possibly even the internet, before corporate media managed to find a way to use those tools to their benefit. This also explains the push for monitoring, regulating (aka controlling) what's being said via this medium.

Mainstream media is not just TV "journalism", but also the rapidly deteriorating online/print journalism:

- https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/the-challenge-of-detect...

- https://theguardian.com/media/2020/dec/12/sinister-sounds-po...

- https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/7/22821823/joe-rogan-media-...

It's exactly what NY asked. He didn't do it as a means to let Spotify drop Joe Rogan, but he did it out of principle. I applaud him for that.
Staying away from the tribalism this seems to be devolving into, I think this is quite telling. Neil Young’s music is some of the most important of the last century. He might not be getting K-Pop levels of streams but his music is incredibly important regardless. Spotify has chosen a podcast over this (for obvious financial reasons). This tells you a lot about the importance Spotify puts on music (in case it wasn’t already obvious with how aggressively they shove podcasts in your face). If you care about music, it might be time to move elsewhere.
I think this is correct response. Anything else is start of slippery slope. First okay removing pod-cast. But what next some other big name demands removing some other artist, maybe upcoming competitor? Should they acquiesce to that too? Where would it end? A trust of well-connected artists dictating who can be with them on the same platform?
People celebrating Spotify don’t realise that they’ve selectively gone through Rogans more spicy episodes historically and removed on edited them.

This is business.

Spotify has a multi-year contract with Rogan, paying him more than $100 million for exclusive content.

That does make me want to switch platforms.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/spotify-strikes-exclusive-podca...

I think this is an appropriate way to deal with any ultimatum. It's a much weaker form of "don't negotiate with terrorists". It's in no organizations to embolden people into bullying them into something. I wish we saw more of this.

(As a hedge, most times when I see something principled like this happen, there is some small blowback and instead of letting it pass, the organization capitulates and reverses their decision. We'll see if that happens here)

I like Neil, saw him in concert long ago and have listened to a ton of his music over many decades. Admittedly, hardly any in recent years unless I go on a nostalgia binge for a day or two. He is, or at least was, brilliant.

I agree with him here, mostly. I wish a bunch of other artists would do the same. Censorship is a complex issue, but there is a lot of mass delusion going on recently and a lot of lives lost because of it.

I haven't really listened to Rogan except clips of what he's said on this issue. But I liked him a lot on Newsradio.

It's not like it is going to hurt Neil, he doesn't need the money. I can't see a huge amount of people streaming his music anymore.

That said, if Neil wants to be "pro-science," he should have never pushed his high res music stuff which sure doesn't stand up to double blind testing.

Haven't heard anyone or news mention the fact Young tried to start his own music service a while back. And that his catalogue was a selling point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pono_(digital_music_service)

Harvest is still one of my favourite albums of all time. Good on Neil for taking a stand. He doesn’t need the money, and he’s never been enamoured by Spotify.

I have no love for Rogan. But I don’t necessarily think Spotify should remove Rogan. But if Neil doesn’t like the way Spotify operates, removing his music is putting his money where his mouth is in terms of protest, and I respect that.

Neil Young insulting young people: "Most of the listeners...on SPOTIFY are 24 years old, impressionable and easy to swing to the wrong side of the truth." [1]

24yo's don't need informational protection by the actions of crusty old rockers.

Neil Young: "...these young people, people who believe what they are hearing because it is on SPOTIFY.... they think everything they hear on SPOTIFY is true."

Ridiculous and condescending. He thinks young people are mindless zombies, dazzled by big tech platform brands, unable to think for themselves.

Neil Young: "unfortunately SPOTIFY continues to peddle the lowest quality in music reproduction. So much for art. Soon my music will live on in a better place."

He sounds like a grumpy old man, throwing around ultimatums, then burning bridges on his way out when the plan didn't work.

[1] https://neilyoungarchives.com/news/1/article?id=Spotify-In-T...

It's the only sane decision to be made. I wonder if Neil Young actually listened to the podcast episode. I really doubt it.
One thing is clear. Spotify should probably have stuck with music. The special relationship with JRE blurs the lines between publisher and platform and their fates might end up being inextricably tied together for better or worse.
Did anyone expect a different outcome? Rogan supposedly pulls in 200M monthly listeners while Young's spotify page says he gets 6M per month.

I imagine Young's manager/label tried their best to talk him down, if this wasn't a stunt for some other purpose.

I’ve seen popular/powerful people being de-platformed, after much rumble, I once was on the side of those questioning platforms for giving “them” the opportunity to build a strong voice I didn’t want to exist.

It only made things worse, the guys moved underground but their communities kept growing and felt validation in martyrdom, and soon enough they found a new, even stronger voice, and they always find ways to circumvent censorship.

It should not be done because it simply does not work in the long run.

Unless you prefer totalitarian regimes of course…

Is there an issue at all here? A person who owns some stuff decided they didn't like something and left. That is their right. Another person is exercising their free speech. That is also their right, even when some people label it misinformation. There is a lot of drama in this thread, but none worth reading.
> Most of the listeners hearing the unfactual, misleading and false COVID information on SPOTIFY are 24 years old, impressionable and easy to swing.

I don't agree with Joe Rogan, but this is a very wild claim.

Young thinks misinformation leads to vaccine skepticism, but hostile behavior like censorship and mandates are also likely to drive people away and increase distrust of science and government.
Kudos to Spotify, whether it's a money decision, or a decision to stand up to a has-been entertainer. They stood up to a bully.
Can anyone recommend the best alternative to Spotify that still has Neil Young? Ideally with a linux client and the ability to control one device from another device's linked client.

I listen to quite a bit of Neil Young and not-so-much Joe Rogan.

I don't understand what motivates a move like this. Is he really that indignant about Joe's views on COVID that he can't sell on the same platform. If so why? Because he cares about public health initiatives that much?
I think this is good for music. I don't think people should think of Spotify as the only place that music exists. It's the new (better) "radio", but good art is often to be found in escaping and rejecting constraints, centralization, and default ways to do things. So, I'm glad that Spotify's very nature is bound to piss people like Neil Young off, regardless of the particulars of this case.
I disagree with Neil on this one.

Trying to cancel and censor another artist because you disagree with their opinions feels very wrong. But just because I disagree with Neil doesn't mean I want to censor him or take him off Spotify or my playlists... Oh wait. He removed his music from my Spotify playlists.

Why wouldn't Neil just write a song titled "Joe Rogan" and use the Spotify platform to spread his message? I'd respect that.

It's funny that the tone some of the Rogan proponents take seems to turn some of the discussion here sour by being so confrontational, though the negativity towards Rogan is repeatedly backed up by some lackluster proof, and seems similarly ideological. He's never claimed to be authoritative about anything besides MMA and comedy. He has long form discussions where he expresses opinions. Calling him dangerous because he's willing to discuss important topics with a wide range of people... it's like saying people shouldn't discuss things they aren't experts on in general, maybe? And further, it's saying you have the authority to denote what makes an expert (it's not being an MD, doctors disagree with each other sometimes).

If I'm not a doctor, and suggest some medicinal treatment to a good friend that does more harm than good, am I responsible? I'd argue possibly. If I'm saying I'm an idiot about this topic every couple of hours, I'd argue not. I'm not claiming expertise. Even if I've read some articles and I say as much, my friends know me, I don't posture, I don't know shit. I expect them to be responsible enough to act accordingly. Broadcasters have some level of responsibility. I don't know how much that should be or how it should be enforced. I think this might need to be done on the individual level, in your own discussions and considerations.

I just think it's silly when people claim to know the truth and try to silence people, even if it seems clear to you what's correct. I think it pushes everyone into their own sides further. We're not at war with each other and we don't want to be. Be chill, question people with honest and positive curiosity, and be friendly. Maybe you'll bring someone to a more reasonable side, or maybe you'll figure out you're being the unreasonable one. Sometimes people don't bite, but if you try you've done your part.

I don't listen to JRE but does Spotify also inject ads on his podcasts? I listened to some other Spotify exclusives and to my surprise (for a paid subscription service), they had injected audio ads. I'm not talking about live reads either but flow interrupting commercial breaks. What's next, break up songs with ads?
I guess Young got tired of Rockin’ in the Free World and would rather go rock in a world where speech must be approved by The Authorities.
Is anybody really all that surprised by this, though? Setting Spotify's deal with JRE aside, removing the show from the platform would set an unenforceable precedent for the majority of podcasts. If we just start banning people for saying things that go against the status quo, what would we even be left with? A handful of NPR shows minus The Moth Radio Hour?

Joe Rogan is a hilariously bad entertainer and an even worse podcast host, but how could this have gone any other way? If Spotify caved, everyone would have gotten the worst of both worlds: people who don't care would have a diminished Spotify experience while every other artist gets a piece of the virtue-signalling pie, and disenfranchised podcast hosts would just go back to RSS and keep distributing their content to the exact same people.

I will be curious to see if NY will stay off of Spotify forever, while JRE is there, or if once covid is not the main news story, that NY is back on Spotify.

Alexa, set a reminder for 3 years from now...

More like, "Neil Young removing his music from Spotify because they refused to cave to his juvenile ultimatum"
Why this headline other way around - It should be "Neil Young pulling his music out of Spotify" .. But this doesnt make sense ..Its free speech and opinions . Ex-President had millions of followers and was elected !! would that mean you move out of the country ..
I just refuse to listen to podcast on Spotify that are exclusive because that is against the whole nature of podcasting.
Those of us who live in the US enjoy free speech, which clearly allows types of speech that are considered misinformation. In order for a platform to censor speech that is otherwise legal, they must either do it out of principle (they simply don't like a certain kind of speech) or as a calculated business decision because it's what their customers want.

It turns out a significant number of people who support free speech also want their favorite platforms to not allow speech they don't like. The argument is "this is not free speech, it's misinformation and it's damaging." If there were valid scientific arguments proving that what we call misinformation is actually damaging, that would be a reasonable position. However, so far I have not seen anything that convinced me.

All I've heard are "just so" arguments akin to "TV/videogames cause violence." What if fake news do not change people's minds as much as it may appear? We tend to listen to viewpoints (fake or not) that confirm our beliefs. All the information confirming our beliefs is out there, cannot be removed from the internet, and we will gravitate towards it. If that is true, then we are paying a high price (asking platforms to police speech beyond the law) for little or no benefit.

Edit: downvoter, I would appreciate if it you could explain how you disagree with my comment.

I think many people miss the point - it is a podcast and not a news stream. Especially in case of JR, what I like about him, he does not have a paper of questions in front of whim, or a guide of some sort in front of him that provides interview scheme and main questions to ask. He obviously has it and keeps the key points in mind to route discussion across the topics he thinks of a most interest with invited guest. But that projects environment of a nice talk, with a friend who stopped by today - we talk, we debate, we drink and smoke and make jokes. What I personally find a lot in his podcast, due to the incredible diverse guests pool, is points of view, historical facts, ways to think about the same issue I never thought before, some laughs, some tears and move on with some baggage in my head. He always says - do not listen to me, do not repeat what I did, and when he says something guests, who very often, do not have any vested interests of any sort, are free to disagree with him, correct him on his mistakes and it happened multiple times. So if he says something controversial, and guest does not correct him it might be mostly because of

- guest does not know much about it - does not want to start debate on the subject - agrees with him

What about Young - I'm sorry for him, he made a mistake. Music is not about right or wrong, music is nice, and it's emotion. If you want that your music "tells" something, preaches a way to see things, so be it. But what Young did, is the same as I refuse to use Nginx because some pedophile sites use it. Spotify is a platform, for God sake, let it be it. This all messed up and I don't think there is a way out of this stupid situation, other than something really big, really massively bad happening on the planet, or at least in "developed" world, so it kind of resets priorities in people, to the "normal" (whatever that is, but not definitely this)

> Most of the listeners hearing the unfactual, misleading and false COVID information on SPOTIFY are 24 years old, impressionable and easy to swing to the wrong side of the truth.

> These young people believe SPOTIFY would never present grossly unfactual information.

> They unfortunately are wrong. I knew I had to try to point that out.

I believe the crux of the thing lies here, in that second paragraph.

60 years old are the people who believes in TV networks, radios stations and podcasts.

24 years old grew up used to the the fact that “on the internet, nobody knows you are a dog”. Meaning that they know that anyone can say anything on the internet and have a YouTube channel about that, a podcast about that. And that podcast or YouTube channel can look just as a TV news show or a mainstream radio show.

Meaning that they know for a fact that a podcast or a YouTube channel is just someone’s ideas.

That realization actually when further and 24 years old actually understand that a TV show and a radio show also are someone’s ideas, distorted by the need to please advertisers and people who think some things cannot be shown on TV (or the radio).

It’s the 60 years old people that failed to understand those things. They are stuck in the mindset where things shown on a screen (or broadcast in audio) are true and mainstream (as in everyone believed in them).

And they became prey to people (24 years old) who wanted to sell things, win elections or convert them into their cults (ideologies).

So, 60 years old think Spotify should ban joe Rohan. 24 yearly old just don’t listen to it if they don’t like those ideas.

60 years old want to ban some ideas from the world, because they fear that every broadcast idea is true, therefore if those strange and fringe ideas as broadcast, they fear they will become true.

Friends, the earth was moved just below your feet and you didn’t realized that people have always been believing in strange ideas, they just have been restricted out of the TV and radio.

Now that anyone and everyone has its own tv show and radio station, those strange ideas are easily accessible to anyone.

As soon as today’s 24 years old become the world’s 60 years old and the old mindset is gone, things will come back to normal. Meaning: Joe Rogans guests can think whatever they want, I don’t care.

Ultimatums shouldn't be rewarded. They don't allow for compromise or peaceful coexistence. Neil Young should go on JRE and share his views rather than attempt to silence others.
I used to read Ars Technica a lot more, but since ~2018, the comment sections there started becoming extremely toxic and one-sided very quickly.

I'm wondering if it has something to do with Condé Nast, because WIRED isn't doing too great either in that regard.

Zaid Jilani has posted an insightful piece on the controversy.

See https://www.inquiremore.com/p/neil-youngs-transformation-on-...

Is this so he can get out of his contract and sell his library to Sony like several big artists recently did?

Edit: Looks like he already sold it off recently. Wonder why he has any say on this anymore.

It seems to me that both Neil Young and Joe Rogan are good people that are doing what they think is right.

But, in my judgement, they're both making serious mistakes.

Young is making the mistake of trying to summon and/or join a mob to silence someone. And Rogan is making the mistake of not handling his Covid-related conversations with the diligence a pandemic ethically requires.

In neither case do they deserve hatred. The best outcome would be for them, or at least others, to learn from their mistakes.